[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 47 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3563-S3574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FOREIGN AFFAIRS REFORM AND RESTRUCTURING ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to consideration of a report of the committee of conference on 
the bill (H.R. 1757) to consolidate international affairs agencies, to 
authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related 
agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes, which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1757), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by majority of the 
     conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of March 10, 1998.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 6 hours of debate equally 
divided in the usual form. The Senator from North Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the distinguished occupant of the chair, who is a 
valued member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I say good 
morning to him, and all the others who are here this morning.
  Mr. President, back in the middle of the 20th century--and when I say 
that I sound like I'm talking about a long time ago--Congress created a 
number of temporary, independent federal agencies. I think it was a bad 
mistake. If I had been here, I would not have voted to do that, having 
the hindsight that I have. But, of course, members of Congress did not 
have the hindsight. They had just gone through, not too many years 
earlier, a horrible World War and were trying to get this Government 
stabilized, trying to help get the rest of the world stabilized. This 
seemed like a good idea, to create these specialized, independent 
Federal agencies.
  Ronald Reagan, when he was President, had to deal with what these 
independent agencies had become--and they did grow mighty independent. 
He would say, ``There is nothing so near eternal life as a temporary 
Federal agency.''
  I read the other day that the responsibilities of just one of these 
agencies is duplicated by about 42 other entities in the Federal 
Government. And of course the cost of running the U.S. bureaucracy has 
risen constantly. Furthermore, there is what has become an interesting 
psychology among those who not only run these agencies but are employed 
by them. The agencies have become the personal little fiefdoms of these 
bureaucrats, and they fight tenaciously at any attempt to do away with 
their turf or, as this conference report proposes to do, to mesh these 
agencies with the rest of the State Department foreign policy 
apparatus. In order to pass this legislation, we have gone through a 
great deal of difficulty, but turf protection is only one of the 
difficulties. Let me proceed, if I may, to give some further historical 
reference, with an assessment of the situation that now exists.
  Of course, we have before us as the pending official business the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which I believe, 
it is fair to say, is the most comprehensive and far-

[[Page S3564]]

reaching foreign policy reform ever considered by the Congress of the 
United States regarding both the United Nations and the executive 
branch of this country. Now then, the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware and I, and many others, have spent not months but years 
working on this proposition. We made every proper and reasonable 
concession in arriving at the general draft of this legislation that is 
now before us in the form of a conference report issued by the House 
and the Senate.
  So it has been the result of long and painstaking negotiations 
between the Congress and the administration. The sweeping and 
bipartisan reforms contained in this conference report are 
clearly designed to enhance America's post-cold war foreign-policy-
making process and to force some fundamental reforms on the United 
Nations.

  With the full support of the administration, this legislation shuts 
down two Federal agencies--the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and 
the U.S. Information Agency. I say ``now.'' That is a relative term, in 
terms of doing something in the Federal Government. It has to be done 
within the next 18 months.
  The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to rein in the 
existing increasingly unwieldy U.S. foreign aid agency, the Agency for 
International Development, and it strengthens the independence of U.S. 
public diplomacy and international broadcasting programs.
  The legislation also mandates a series of deep-seated reforms at the 
United Nations, which many Members of this Senate and of the House of 
Representatives have been demanding for years. I remember the 
distinguished Senator from Kansas, a gentlelady if there ever was one, 
Nancy Kassebaum, whose ire was raised when she found out what was going 
on in terms of irresponsibility in the operation of the United Nations.
  How to get it under control? I am going to discuss that in some 
detail in just a minute. All you hear these days is talk about how 
wonderful the United Nations is--and that is not so, it is a 
bureaucratic nightmare--and how bad the United States and the American 
people are for not paying what is called ``the arrearages.'' Hogwash. 
For more than a year, I have worked with Senator Biden, Senator Grams, 
Senator Gregg, and others, to create a package of reform benchmarks--
reforms that the State Department must certify that the United Nations 
has completed--before they are paid any of these so-called arrearages. 
In other words, it is a very clear put up or shut up.
  For months, we negotiated these reforms with the State Department and 
the White House. In fact, we even shared our proposals with Kofi Annan, 
the distinguished Secretary-General of the United Nations, so that the 
international elite in New York and Geneva would not be blindsided by 
these requirements for reform of the United Nations.
  Kofi Annan came down and visited me one day. We had a nice visit. We 
went to several places on Capitol Hill together. One by one--in S. 116, 
down on the first floor of this Capitol, which is one of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee hearing rooms--we went down the list, 
benchmark by benchmark by benchmark by benchmark, and he nodded, and he 
nodded, and he nodded.
  This conference report contains the fruits of hundreds of hours of 
bipartisan negotiations. Maybe it could be done better, but I don't 
know anybody in this Senate who is going to take the time to do it 
better, because it is going to take hundreds upon hundreds more hours 
to change the kinds of things that we worked out.
  You are going to have the lobbyists from the United Nations piling 
all over Senators, ``Oh, you can't do this, we've got to have our money 
right now.'' You are going to have lobbyists for this agency and this 
independent agency and all the rest. They don't want to be folded into 
the foreign policy apparatus that exists and which costs billions upon 
billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money.
  It is either now or never. The game playing is over, and the 
enactment of this legislation represented by this conference report 
between the House and the Senate is the last shot the President will 
have at enacting this legislation. If members want to go home and tell 
their constituents, ``Well, I didn't like this aspect,'' or ``I didn't 
like that aspect,'' I am going to be right behind you saying, ``Yes, 
but `what he didn't do' or `what she didn't do' is vote to clean up a 
mess in Washington, DC.''
  This conference report, as I say, contains the fruits of hundreds 
upon hundreds of hours of labor. Once these U.N. reform benchmarks are 
implemented, only then will be made $819 million available for the 
United Nations and other international organizations. In addition, the 
President will be authorized to forgive an additional $107 million in 
debt that the United Nations owes the United States. Nobody ever 
mentions that. Of course, it is a lot bigger than that when you figure 
in the American people have paid for all of these police actions that 
the United Nations has been doing all around the world. But that is 
neither here nor there for the time being.
  What I am saying, Mr. President, is that there has been no 
disagreement about any of these provisions. So the substance of this 
bill, a complete overhaul of our Government's foreign policy apparatus, 
and the reform of the United Nations, which has to come before a dollar 
changes hands, remains virtually unchanged since the Senate passed this 
bill, by a vote of 90 to 5, on June 17, 1997.
  Let me restate for the obvious an important point. This conference 
report remains virtually unchanged from the bill passed by the Senate 
by a vote of 90 to 5 last year. The Senate has overwhelmingly endorsed 
the reforms, and the Clinton administration has signed off on them. 
Let's see who reneges on this agreement. Will it be the administration? 
Will the administration veto this bill because of two or three lines 
that it happens not to like? We will find out, won't we?
  All those Senators who say, ``Well, I don't like this aspect of it, 
so I'm not going to vote for any of it,'' had better be prepared to 
explain what they, in effect, voted against. If they want to come and 
sit down and talk with Joe Biden and me, we will explain the purpose 
and the reason for everything in this bill.
  And yet--and this is bothersome to me, I confess--we are now facing a 
razor-thin majority vote in the Senate. We might not even have a 
majority. Far from lobbying the Senate for passage of this legislation, 
the President has been standing over there in the wings and has 
indicated that he may veto the bill, the substance of which his 
administration had negotiated with us and agreed to with us.
  Why is the President threatening to veto this bill? One small 
provision--a few words included by our House colleagues--section 1816 
bars American organizations from using U.S. taxpayers' dollars to lobby 
foreign governments to change their abortion laws. I guarantee you, 
that is all there is to it, and the President sits down on Pennsylvania 
Avenue and says, ``If you don't take that out, I'm going to veto it; I 
don't care whether you save billions of dollars or not.''
  Mr. President, as they do in grade school, this is show-and-tell 
day--put-up-or-shut-up.
  I tell you one thing, I have tried to get along with the 
administration, but if the administration vetoes this bill because of 
those few lines, I am going to go do everything I can, go everywhere I 
can and explain exactly what the President did. I have dealt with him 
on this thing and he has been very accommodating, and so have his 
people, but if he wants trouble on this bill, just veto it, and I will 
give him some trouble.

  That little provision for which he is threatening to veto this bill--
let me repeat--it stops those who advocate abortion--that is the 
deliberate destruction of innocent and helpless human life--from using 
tax dollars paid by the American people to lobby foreign governments to 
change their policies on abortion.
  I did not want to have the subject mentioned. I could have put it in 
this bill when it went through the Senate, but I thought we ought to 
address the real problem in this bill, and that is this foreign policy 
apparatus which has become so bloated and with so many other Federal 
entities running around duplicating each other's business.
  I do not believe in my heart of hearts, or cannot believe, that Mr.

[[Page S3565]]

Clinton and his Democratic allies in the Senate would be willing to 
sacrifice the payment of U.N. arrears--one of their top foreign policy 
priorities--just to preserve the ability of nongovernmental 
organizations to use American tax money to lobby foreign governments on 
the question of abortion. I refuse to believe that the President is 
going to ``pick up his pen,'' as Ronald Reagan used to say, and veto 
it. If he does, some of us are going to react.
  But that is exactly what a lot of people are proposing in the Senate: 
``Oh, I can't vote for it because of that abortion language.'' They 
don't care anything about all the millions of dollars this legislation 
is going to save, or about the elimination of the duplication of 
bureaucracy. Instead, two or three little lines involving, what I 
regard anyhow, an abuse of American taxpayers' money, are the grounds 
for voting against this bill.
  Some on the other side have been heard going around calling section 
1816 the ``Mexico City'' policy. It ``ain't'' the Mexico City policy, 
not a bit of it. I helped write the Mexico City policy way back when 
Ronald Reagan, by Executive order, made it part of this country's 
position. But don't take my word for it. I want every Senator to read 
the bill or the conference report, especially section 1816. And to help 
them look for it and find it, section 1816 is on page 102 of this 
conference report. If you can't find page 102 of the conference report, 
come right here, and I will find it and put it in your little hot 
hands. But let's not play games about it. Put up or shut up, show and 
tell.
  What did Ronald Reagan's Mexico City policy do? It forbade any 
expenditure of U.S. taxpayer money going to any organizations that 
performed abortions abroad.

  Ronald Reagan was a strong and sincere, genuine pro-life President. 
You do not see many of them coming along. The provision in this 
conference report does not do what the Mexico City policy did.
  As much as I wish it were otherwise, section 1816 will not cut off 
funding to organizations that perform abortions as required under 
President Reagan's original Mexico City policy. All section 1816 does 
is simply prohibit population control groups from using American 
taxpayers' money,--which they will receive under current law anyhow--to 
lobby foreign countries to overturn their laws pertaining to abortion. 
That is it, sum total. If anybody in the press or the media doubt it, 
come on down here; we will talk about it. No, they are not even here. 
There is one lonely soul sitting up there in the media gallery.
  Initially, last year, the House did include or try to include 
President Reagan's full Mexico City language in this bill. When the 
House did that, the Clinton administration said, ``No. The President 
will veto this bill.'' And there ensued a months-long standoff which 
lasted until the waning hours of the last session of Congress.
  Now, then, Mr. President, despite my personal support--my personal 
support--for the Mexico City policy, I urged my House colleagues to 
remove that provision from the bill. I said, ``We can fight that battle 
on another battleground. Let's not kill this one opportunity we are 
going to have to revamp and consolidate and shape up the foreign policy 
apparatus of this country.'' I did this because I knew that the 
President would never accept a full reversal of his administration's 
stand on the Mexico City policy which was totally at odds with those of 
the stand of Ronald Reagan.
  Last November, in an effort to reach a compromise, the House of 
Representatives' leaders watered down the abortion language in the bill 
to the point that I have stated over and over this morning--simply to 
ban the use of U.S. dollars to lobby foreign governments to change 
their abortion laws. But despite an exceedingly reasonable offer from 
the House, this was still not good enough for the administration. The 
administration rejected this compromise as the session came to an end 
last year, citing nonbinding report language that they claim would have 
barred the U.S. groups from even attending international conferences 
aimed at changing abortion laws. This they said would amount--get this, 
Mr. President--this would amount to a ``gag rule.''
  Come this spring, House leaders offered a second compromise. They 
agreed to remove the offending report language, softening it simply to 
prevent the use of U.S. tax dollars to sponsor such conferences. So it 
is all right to attend them, but do not use tax money to sponsor them. 
In fact, I have to say this about the House leadership. They have been 
so reasonable in their efforts to reach a compromise that today the 
abortion language before us in this legislation is so limited that its 
approval would be little more than a symbolic concession on the part of 
the Clinton administration.
  But even that appears to be too much from what I hear because the 
lobbyists say all Democrats must vote against this bill. That is the 
word I am hearing floating around. And we will see when the roll is 
called on it. We will see.
  At this point it is unreasonable, I think, to suggest that it is the 
House leaders who have been exhibiting intransigence. While the House 
has offered compromise after compromise, giving up 90 percent of their 
ground, the administration still, to this day, is demanding total and 
complete capitulation. What they are saying is: ``Kill the conference 
report. Forget it. Don't do away with any of these irrelevant, 
unnecessary Federal agencies and the bureaucracies. Let's keep on 
keeping on.'' They do not seem to care what the costs are. I have not 
heard that mentioned one time--not one time--by the administration.
  Mr. President, I am not going to take any more of the Senate's time 
discussing this issue, because I do not view it as central to the 
reforms contained in the conference report. I want to get back to that 
before I turn over the podium to my good, fine friend, Senator Biden.

  Mr. President, not anybody--not the administration, not the 
Democrats, certainly not Jesse Helms--got everything any of us wanted 
in this conference report. I acknowledge that. But we did work together 
in a remarkably novel way to cooperate, and to craft the legislation 
that is before the Senate today that forms the conference report. This 
legislation, save for one single provision on international abortion 
lobbying, is the result of strong bipartisan consensus. And that is a 
novelty around this place. And that is the reason it passed the Senate 
the first time around 90-5.
  I think, Mr. President, it will be a terrible mistake for the Senate 
Democrats and the White House to kill these absolutely imperative, 
essential, necessary reforms in order to defend the bureaucratic status 
quo at the United Nations, not to mention within our own executive 
branch, to defend the bloated foreign policy apparatus.
  So let me be candid. This legislation represents quite possibly the 
last chance to bring true, deep-seated change to the United Nations in 
return for U.S. arrearages payments. If Democrats succeed in voting 
down this conference report or if the President chooses to veto this 
legislation, then they together will decide what is going to happen in 
the future; they will bear sole responsibility, I think, for the unpaid 
dues to the United Nations. And nobody is going to tell Kofi Annan, if 
this conference report goes down in the Senate or if it is vetoed by 
the President, ``The check's in the mail,'' because it is never going 
to be in the mail, certainly not if I have anything to do with it.
  This Senator, for one, will delay crying, weeping, when the White 
House complains that funding has not been made available to the United 
Nations. Next time I see the President I am going to say, ``Mr. 
President, you did it. You did it.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. Thank you very much.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, there is not much that my colleague from 
North Carolina, the chairman of the committee, has said that I take 
issue with. Sitting with my staff here, as I was waiting to speak, I 
said, ``I have this long statement that is prepared that goes into 
detail about the bill. The truth of the matter is, the debate here is 
almost not about the bill, not about the conference report.''
  I can and I guess I will at some point do what I probably shouldn't 
do and that is second-guess what the rationale and motivation of the 
House leadership

[[Page S3566]]

is and what the rationale and motivation of the President and 
administration is relative to the one thing that doesn't have a darn 
thing to do with what the Senator and I worked so hard to put 
together--and, I might add, the Presiding Officer, as well is a member 
of the committee. He will remember we spent a lot of time on this--a 
lot of time.
  There has been talk, led by my friend from North Carolina, about 
reorganizing the State Department for the past several years. Nothing 
ever really happened. There was a lot of work, don't get me wrong, but 
in terms of producing something that would become law, nothing ever 
happened.
  We have been debating and talking about U.N. arrearages. We have 
really been debating the U.N. arrearages, or whether or not it was a 
reasonable, functional, useful organization. That has been a raging 
debate probably since the mid-1980s. It has been around for a long time 
but, in terms of the political chemistry on this floor of the U.S. 
Senate, for the last probably 10 to 12 years in earnest. As a matter of 
fact, I think my friend from North Carolina would acknowledge with me 
that in both our political parties it has taken on, in the fringes of 
our parties, a status that far exceeds anything about what the United 
Nations does or doesn't do. On one end of my party it is the salvation 
of the world, and on the other end of the Senator's party it is the 
Devil incarnate. It has kind of replaced the fervor that involved the 
debate for and against communism. It is a new thing, a new political 
dynamic.
  We worked very hard and we actually came up with a resolution. I 
respectfully suggest that what we did--and we made serious 
compromises--the Senator from North Carolina did not come to this 
conclusion gently, nor did the Senator from Delaware in terms of the 
compromise relative to what we did in the United Nations here. But the 
vast majority of the people who are informed on this issue, both in 
politics and in the foreign policy establishment and in the world 
community, acknowledge that what we did is a reasonable, 
straightforward and, I think, significant piece of work.
  I don't want to get my friend from North Carolina in trouble. I think 
the most significant thing about it is the Senator from North Carolina 
signed on to this. That puts in perspective not only the arrearages but 
what he has wanted to do to get the United Nations to change its tune a 
little bit. Hopefully, we will not be arguing another decade about 
whether or not it is a salvation of the world or the Devil incarnate. 
We will have a pretty clear-eyed view of what we expect of the United 
Nations and what we think its value is. That is a very valuable 
contribution all by itself, in my opinion.
  The third thing we did here, and I am sure my friend will not mind my 
saying this because we both said it publicly in different iterations 
over the last year or so--when I inherited this job from the 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, who retired, I went to see the 
chairman. We came here together, same year, same time. We have been 
friends; we have been ideological foes. We have been on the opposite 
sides on issues, and we have been together. We have been hanging out 
with each other for 25 years. I went to him and I said--which is, I 
guess, uncharacteristically blunt for me--``We can play this flat or we 
can play this round, Mr. Chairman; how do you want to do this?''
  He came back and said, ``Joe, what are your priorities? What is 
important to you? This is what is important to me. Let's agree with 
what we can, and fight it out where we cannot agree.'' He has kept his 
word in everything he said to me. I said, ``It is important to me, with 
the end of the cold war, the Berlin wall down, that we do not cut back 
our foreign policy establishment.'' As we are cutting back our defense 
establishment I think as far as we should cut it back, cutting back our 
defense establishment, there is a need for us to extend our foreign 
policy reach and establishment, whether it means embassies or 
consulates or enough personnel or intense involvement in other 
countries. He said, ``It is not my intention in reorganization to 
emasculate the foreign policy,'' the 150 function, as we call it in 
budget parlance.

  So the third piece of this deal here is the State Department has been 
trying to get full funding for all its operations for years. And it is 
in here. Now there are reorganization provisions. The President agreed 
to the reorganization, and we put the structure of it into this bill. 
The Administration didn't like some of it. But the Senator and I agreed 
it was necessary. And in return we got a pretty balanced package here.
  Now, so far, so good, as they say. The Senator, I think, is fond of 
telling the joke about the guy who jumps off the 100-story building and 
as he passes the 50th floor a group of people are standing at a window 
and yell out, ``How is it going?'' And the guy falling down says, ``So 
far, so good.'' That is how I felt about this whole operation. I am 
feeling real good. We just haven't hit the ground yet. Everything we 
have done I am, quite frankly, proud of.
  I think we have made what has to happen. In a democracy of 250 
million people, we make compromises. But the end result is, I think 
this conference report strengthens the foreign policy and the ability 
to conduct foreign policy and the security of the United States of 
America.
  Now, that is the so-far-so-good part. We both knew, the chairman and 
I, that the President wanted fast track, something he feels very 
strongly about. He probably could have saved fast track if he were 
willing to compromise on Mexico City, although that wasn't attached. I 
understand at the end of the day there were some in the House who said, 
if you attach this, we will go along with fast track. He didn't do it 
then. He didn't do it on other things.
  By the way, I have to say for the Record, because I want to be 
straight up about this, my colleagues know this, but so that everybody 
understands how I approach this, the abortion issue is not one that I 
live and die on. I think government should stay out of the business. I 
vote against funding of abortion and I vote against restrictions on a 
woman's right to an abortion, which makes everyone angry with me. The 
only person happy with me is me, in my conscience. But this for me is 
not on the list of the 10 most important issues facing America. It 
doesn't make that list for me. I must admit I do not have the passion 
for or against what is being debated in here to think it is warranted 
or worthy of being attached to what I consider to be a serious array of 
foreign policy considerations affecting this Nation.
  On the other hand, the Senator from North Carolina does. It is a 
matter of great passion and commitment to him. His opposition to 
abortion from the day we arrived on this floor of the U.S. Senate and I 
first became acquainted with him to today has not waned a bit. I 
respect him for that. I disagree with his approach--at least most of 
it. I vote against funding, so that part we agree on, but I disagree 
with his approach. But I respect it, as I do people like my friend 
Senator Barbara Boxer and others who vehemently feel the other way on 
both funding and access.
  The reason I bother to tell you that, Mr. President, is this. It took 
nothing on my part, I had to make no compromise to say to our House 
friends and to our friends in the Senate, we want to keep Mexico City 
off of this; but it did take some real sacrifice on the part of my 
friend from North Carolina to say, as he did last year, look, keep this 
off. There are other vehicles. We can fight this out other places. 
Don't confuse it with this historic undertaking.
  We have, I think, accomplished, in at least what we passed out of the 
Senate--I will be straight up with everybody. We hung tough on that. 
The truth of the matter was neither one of us were able to affect the 
House's attitude toward this. The one thing I think we share a lot in 
common, the one thing the chairman and I share in common is we are 
realists. We have been here for 25 years; we know how this place 
works. This is not something that--not because we are so smart, you 
would have to be an idiot to be here 25 years and not know how it 
works--speaking for myself. It is pretty clear that once we could not 
control what would happen in the House and what Representative Smith--
who, I might add, I suspect, although he knows a lot about the issue, 
knows a lot less about the issue than my friend from North Carolina. My 
friend from North Carolina was dealing with this issue before a lot of 
other people knew it existed. It became clear that we could not do much 
about it.

  Although the chairman and I still disagree on a number of things, one

[[Page S3567]]

thing we have established--and I am proud of it, and I think he is 
too--is that we are absolutely straight with each other. So he came to 
me and said, ``Look, Joe, this is in. They are going to compromise on 
this, but it's going to be in. So my position now, Joe, is it's in, so 
let's pass the whole thing.'' I tried my best and kept my promise, I 
stuck with my commitment, but I told him, ``If it's in, I am going to 
have a problem sticking with the deal--that is, pushing this through.''
  Let me tell you why. It has less to do with the merits of the 
argument relating to Mexico City than it does if we pass it here with 
this attached, even though the President will veto it. I am going to be 
completely blunt about this. If we pass this, my worry is that it will 
embolden the ``Congressmen Smiths'' and others to suggest that they can 
keep doing this on everything that comes over here. I want to tell my 
friend straight up, that is my rationale.
  I am of the view--and this is like reading the entrails of goats and 
guessing like the soothsayers did 2,000 years ago what is going to 
motivate Members of the House or an administration to act or not act. 
My feeling is, since the Senate has not passed this Mexico City 
language in the past, and there is a majority that votes against Mexico 
City language--and this is purely presumptuous on my part--if Speaker 
Gingrich, keeping his commitment to his people, put it in, he realizes 
and is able to say, the Senate will not pass this, the President will 
not veto it, let's move on; we have a better chance of getting to the 
spot we want to get to--the Senator and I--which is to clear up the 
U.N. arrearages, reorganize the State Department, and fully fund the 
State Department.
  So I guess what I am saying is, the only place we disagree is 
tactically what is the better thing to do to get what we both want, 
notwithstanding that we disagree on Mexico City. I vote against Mexico 
City restrictions; the Senator votes for them. But I don't think that 
is what is motivating either one of us here at this moment. To speak 
for myself, that is not what is motivating me at the moment. What 
motivates me at the moment is, what do I tell my colleagues on my side 
of the aisle, a fair number of whom listen to me on these issues--and 
that is presumptuous to say, but it is just because I am the ranking 
member. What do I tell them is the most likely route for us, at the end 
of the day, to be able to get the State Department reorganized, get the 
U.N. arrearages paid, and funding for the State Department through the 
supplemental?
  The conclusion I have reached--and I would not bet college tuition on 
it for my daughter--is to stand firm, demonstrate there are not enough 
votes here to pass Mexico City, with the knowledge the President is 
going to veto it and the pressure is to get on with the business of 
foreign policy. I could be wrong about that.

  One way or another, I think it is fair to say that at least the 
Senator and I know--from different perspectives--that isn't going to 
become law. The President is going to veto this with this language 
attached. I could--and I am inclined to, because I am proud of it--
spend a great deal of time talking about the merits of each of the 
pieces of this conference report. I will refrain from that, because I 
would be preaching to the choir. I am preaching to the author here. It 
is not like I am going to say anything he doesn't know.
  I can put in the Record the details of what constitutes what we have 
accomplished and what is in the conference report. In many respects, 
the conference reported back a better bill than we put out. In many 
ways, it has been a better bill. But time is our enemy. Time is our 
enemy.
  I must again be completely blunt with my colleagues. At one point, I 
counseled that we not even debate this, let's vote, get it over with, 
and send it to the President and let it be vetoed. I believe the more 
time we take to deal with the U.N., the more difficult and intransigent 
the U.N. becomes, the harder it is for Ambassador Richardson to take 
what we have given him and get the results we want, the harder it is 
for us to unravel a State Department that needs unraveling, in terms of 
reorganization. Time is not our friend.
  I read on the way down this morning on the train--I commute every day 
from my home State of Delaware. I have a little ritual, and my friend 
knows about this. I read my local paper because of its interest and out 
of self-defense, I read the New York Times, and I read the Wall Street 
Journal, and that gets me to Baltimore. From Baltimore on, I prepare 
whatever I am going to do that morning. So commuting 4 hours a day 
isn't all bad, because you have a lot of time to prepare.
  On the way down, I read in the New York Times this morning's lead 
article about the IMF. It is pretty clearly unrelated to this issue but 
tangentially involved with the issue of Mexico City. But it looks like 
IMF isn't going to go anywhere. I will not put this in the Record. I 
don't often put in news articles. But this is on page 9 of the New York 
Times, entitled, ``GOP Snubs White House on Billions for IMF.''
  Well, there are only three or four major foreign policy 
considerations on our plate right now. NATO is a big one, and the 
Senator and I will deal with this come Tuesday. Then there is IMF, the 
U.N., and reorganization of the State Department. It seems to me--and I 
do not in any way--and I give my friend my word on this--direct any of 
this at him or to anyone in particular. It seems a shame that three of 
those four major issues get tied up in what is in fact a divisive and, 
understandably, national debate relating to abortion.
  Sometimes I wish we had the House rules, which say that whatever you 
do has to be germane. But then I am not so sure, because I realize they 
can get the Rules Committee to do anything they want. But it is too bad 
we can't say that we are going to debate foreign policy and settle it, 
that we are going to fight out abortion, and that we will fight out 
education, and so forth. I understand the practical reasons why that is 
not the case, but the truth is that it creates real problems.
  The one and only place--and I will cease after this--where I disagree 
with my friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the full committee, 
is on this issue of whether or not there has in fact been a compromise 
that has been put forward by the House leadership on the issue of 
Mexico City. It has been stated--and this is the only place I disagree 
with my friend--that the House anti-abortion forces, led by Smith of 
New Jersey and Gingrich, the Speaker, compromised on 90 percent of what 
the Mexico City language is. In truth, I think that is illusory. I 
don't think there is any compromise.
  Let me for the record, for those who are going to make difficult 
decisions here on how to vote--I am going to vote no on this bill. The 
reason I am going to vote no on this bill is because I am opposed to 
Mexico City. That is true. But that is not the main reason I am going 
to vote no. To be honest with you, were I President of the United 
States, I would have a harder time deciding whether to veto this or not 
because I care so much about the three provisions.
  Arguably, someone could say why not swallow on another provision that 
you strongly disagree with, but in comparative weight, in terms of how 
it affects the national interest, arguably you should go ahead and not 
veto. But I am not President. I am a U.S. Senator. As a U.S. Senator, I 
am obliged to explain my rationale for why I am going to vote against 
this. I am reiterating what I said at the outset. I think if we vote no 
in this body, whether you are for or against Mexico City, we, quite 
frankly, take the House leadership off of a bit of a dilemma. I believe 
in my heart that much of the House leadership would rather this not 
have been in this bill. They know how important this is, even though I 
am not questioning their support for the Mexico City language.
  It is a little bit like my saying I feel very, very strongly about 
tobacco companies being able to target advertising to children--very 
strongly. I think they have been outrageous in what they have done. 
Should I attach that tobacco language to this foreign policy bill? 
Would that be appropriate no matter how strongly I feel about it? 
Should I say I am not going to fund the United Nations arrearages, I am 
not going to reorganize the State Department, I am not going to fund 
the State Department, and, by the way, although it is not in this bill, 
I am not going to replenish the International Monetary Fund even though 
there is an economic crisis in Asia that could still spill over to the 
United States? And the single

[[Page S3568]]

most significant thing we could do to stop that from happening is 
regenerate confidence to the degree that everyone knows there is enough 
money in the IMF to help these countries get back on their feet. Should 
I say because of my feeling about tobacco advertising that I am ready 
to scuttle all three of those? I think that is inappropriate.
  I think the House leadership--I could be wrong, but I think the 
majority of the House thinks it is inappropriate. It does not matter. A 
minority in the House, as has occurred in the Senate, with Democrats as 
well as Republicans, on other issues, both of us have attacked it. I 
think the strongest message we could send is to stop it. The Senate is 
not going to accept it. The President clearly will not accept it, 
because then I think the leadership on the other side will say, ``Look, 
minority within our minority. I know this is important to you. I kept 
my commitment to you. We tried it. Now let's get down to the business 
of the Nation.''
  I could be wrong about that. But that is why Joe Biden is voting 
against the thing that he, at least 49 percent, was responsible for 
creating, this bill, along with the 51 percent of my friends, including 
the Senator from North Carolina. I cannot think of anything other than 
the crime bill that I put as much time into than this. This is a little 
bit like sacrificing your child. I put a lot of time and energy, and my 
staff put in hundreds of hours, as has the chairman's staff. I am proud 
of our product. But I know the President is going to veto this. What is 
going to embolden the Chris Smiths of the world to continue to throw a 
monkey wrench into the foreign policy of this Nation?
  My point to my colleagues on my side of the aisle is to vote no. 
That, coupled with the President being against it, maybe will allow us 
to get down to the regular business of the Senate again. But I could be 
wrong.
  Again, this is a tactical judgment, from my standpoint, on how we get 
on with conducting the foreign policy of this Nation and taking on our 
responsibilities in the U.S. Senate to do that.
  But having said that, let me make sure everybody understands what 
Mexico City is. You say to people out there, ``Well, this is about 
Mexico City. Well, is it about smog? What do you mean Mexico City? What 
is this about? Corruption? Drugs? No. It is about Mexico City.

  Mexico City is a consequence of a reference to a meeting which took 
place on population planning back in 1984 where a whole bunch of 
nations got together under the auspices of the U.N. They were going to 
meet in Mexico City and decide how they should deal with the notion of 
population planning. The Reagan administration announced 
administratively a new policy on international population assistance, 
which was a change in what the U.S. Government policy had been as it 
related to assisting organizations involved in population planning in 
other countries.
  Let me make a very important distinction. Even I had to go back and 
read this. This is not about involving any restrictions on governmental 
agencies. Money we send to the Mexican Government, the Mexican 
Government can use in population planning funds--if we send them any--
any way they want with one restriction, and it is the Helms law. 
Senator Helms--and I supported it--argued that we should not be sending 
taxpayer dollars to other countries in the form of foreign aid if those 
other countries, or private organizations within those countries, are 
going to take our taxpayer dollars and perform abortions--in the case 
of China, coerced abortions, where the Chinese Government has coerced 
people into having abortions, forced abortions, to maintain this one-
child policy, one child per family. So it became law. It is still law. 
Under the Helms amendment, taxpayer dollars collected and sent 
overseas, in what most people would refer to as foreign aid, cannot be 
used to perform or to coerce abortions. That is the law.
  Mexico City is in addition to that. Mexico City says--I caution my 
staff to correct me if I make even any nuance mistake about this 
because it is important--Mexico City comes along and it does two 
things. It says when the United States, by whatever mechanism, sends 
American taxpayer dollars to nongovernmental organizations instead of 
to the comparable Department of Health and Social Services in Mexico--
for example, they have a comparable agency in their Federal Government 
like we have in ours--sending funds to them, it gets treated one way. 
Sending funds to, say, Mexico City Planned Parenthood, not a U.S. 
corporation, not a U.S. entity, but a Mexican entity, or any other 
country, in Argentina, in China, in Vietnam, the Mexico City directive 
of President Reagan said not only can they not use their funds because 
the Helms amendment blocks use of any taxpayer dollars--OK? Not only 
the government, but to these private agencies. The add-on that 
President Reagan, through Executive order, laid out was the following. 
It said not only can they not use our funds, the money we send, say, to 
Planned Parenthood Mexico, they cannot use their funds--let me get this 
straight for everybody. Right now, if we sent, through a population 
control program, money to Planned Parenthood Mexico, Planned Parenthood 
Vietnam, Planned Parenthood--I don't know that they have one but assume 
they do--and we sent money to the Government of Vietnam, the Government 
of Mexico, the government of another country, as well for population 
control under our law, if we find out they, either the private agency, 
or the government, is using that money to perform abortions, then it is 
against Federal law. We stop doing it. It is the Helms amendment. It 
cannot be done.
  OK. That is the law. That is not in question here. That is the law 
now, and it will stay the law. But this is a different deal. Former 
President Reagan said not only do we want to stop that; we want to stop 
these nongovernmental agencies from using their own money. So now 
Planned Parenthood in Mexico gets a dollar of U.S. taxpayers' money; 
they can't use that dollar to perform abortions. They can't use that 
dollar to go out there and be promoting those abortions. OK.
  But now let's say they have a fundraiser in Mexico City, and all 
Mexican citizens show up and they contribute $2. So they have $3 to 
spend now, two of their own that they raised that has nothing to do 
with taxpayers' dollars and one that is the American taxpayers' dollar. 
Mexico City says they can't even use their own dollars, their own money 
to do either of two things: One, to perform abortions or, two, to lobby 
their own Government on anything relating to abortion.
  Now, the irony here is if they were the Right to Life Committee in 
Mexico City, they also could not lobby with their own money their 
Government to end abortions. It is a gag rule. We are saying what we 
can't say to their Government--even Mr. Smith and others have not tried 
to say--any money we send to the Mexican Government to control 
population can't be used to perform abortions, and if they take any of 
our money they can't use any of their own money to do anything relating 
to abortion. We don't say that. We know we can't tell another 
Government they can't use their own tax dollars, but we feel we can 
tell a nongovernment agency, these NGOs they talk about, nongovernment 
organizations, we think we can tell them what they can do not only with 
the money we send them but with their own money.
  That is the objection this President has. By the way, we went through 
a similar debate here in the United States on the so-called gag rule. 
It would be unconstitutional. We could not say to local Planned 
Parenthood in Duluth, MN, ``You are getting some Federal funding; you 
can't use the Federal money. . . .'' We can say that. But we could not 
then say, ``With your money, you can't even tell anybody who comes in 
to see you about the options that are available.'' We can't say to a 
local doctor in the United States of America, ``Look, we can pass a law 
saying you cannot perform an abortion with taxpayer dollars''--we could 
do that, but under our first amendment we could not say to the doctor 
or clinic, using their own funds, you cannot counsel the patient, ``By 
the way, there are four ways to deal with your problem. One of them is 
. . .'' We can't do that.
  That is what we call the gag rule. But we are going to gag the world. 
We are going to tell the world, if you are involved with us in any way, 
you not only in accepting our dollars cannot use our dollars, you can't 
use your own dollars. The President and a vast majority of my 
colleagues feel very

[[Page S3569]]

strongly--I admit they feel more strongly than I do--about that as a 
matter of principle.
  So what is this fight about? Where did the compromise come in? What 
did the House do to make this Mexico City language more palatable or 
reflect what is called a compromise by my friend from North Carolina? 
Well, the compromise contained in this report would put Mexico City 
into place, make it law--it is not law now, but it was an Executive 
order, by the way, from President Bush and President Reagan, and 
eliminated by President Clinton. This would now put into legislation 
Mexico City language. But here is what the language said. It would 
permit the President to waive the restriction on U.S. funds to a group 
that used its own money to perform abortions. Hardly any of these 
groups do that. So it is really not giving up much, and it would 
require the President to say, you can use your own money to perform an 
abortion.
  That is allegedly the compromise. But let's look at what it leaves in 
place. And by the way, there would be a small financial cost in doing 
so. Population funds would then be limited to $356 million in that year 
as opposed to $385 million if he exercised this waiver. That is the 
penalty the President would pay to waive. But there is no waiver 
authority on the provision which is referred to as the lobbying 
restriction. And this is the more important provision because (a) few 
of the organizations that receive population funds actually perform 
abortions, and (b) from the administration's viewpoint, the principle 
worth upholding is one embodied in the first amendment of our 
Constitution, and that is this provision restricts free debate.

  In fact, the reason the restriction applies only to foreign 
organizations and not domestic organizations is that it wouldn't be 
permitted under our Constitution under the first amendment if we tried 
to apply this language to an American nongovernmental organization. It 
would be unconstitutional.
  Now, the statement of the managers in the conference report 
elaborates on the definition of lobbying and makes it clear that the 
provision is in fact designed to restrict speech. What are we doing 
now? We are telling them they can't use their own money to speak to 
their own Government, not our Government, not our money, can't use 
their own money to speak to their own Government about the issue of 
procreation.
  Let me read the managers' statement, fancy term for saying what is 
contained in the attachment to this legislation. This is relating to 
what constitutes lobbying. ``Such practices include not only overt 
lobbying for such changes but also such other activities as sponsoring 
rather than merely attending conferences and workshops on the alleged 
defects of the abortion laws as well as drafting and distributing of 
materials or public statements calling attention to defects in the 
country's abortion laws.''
  That is pretty broad. That is the problem the administration has. 
This is so far-reaching in terms of what it does as it relates to 
speech that as a matter of principle they have made no bones about it; 
3 days after they came into office they scrapped this language. It is 
now being forced down their throat if they want to be able to conduct 
the foreign policy of the United States of America.
  So my disagreement with my friend from North Carolina relates only to 
whether or not this is really a compromise. None of the language is 
changed. Only the ability of the President to waive the first section, 
not the second section. And by my understanding the managers' 
definition of what constitutes lobbying is even broader than anyone 
reasonably would think lobbying is in our country.
  Now, I think this is antidemocratic. It is a gag rule. It is 
inappropriate for us to do this. It interferes in ways we should not be 
interfering. And it will have no impact, in my view, on whether there 
are more or fewer or lesser abortions performed in the United States of 
America. As a matter of fact, I am of the view--and I am, as I think 99 
percent of Americans are, opposed to abortion. No one likes abortion. 
Even among those who have had one and/or perform them, I don't know 
anybody who likes abortion. But I think, ironically, Mexico City could 
cause more abortions to be performed worldwide. If Mexico City's 
restrictions are reimposed, several population organizations, including 
the largest in the world, the International Planned Parenthood 
Federation, will not any longer take any U.S. population control money. 
They are going to say, ``If the price for us taking your money is we 
have to not use any of our money ever again, then we don't want your 
money.'' Is that a good idea? What have we accomplished?
  I think these restrictions could lead to significant cutbacks in 
family planning assistance in several countries. Such assistance 
increasing access--for example, assistance to increase access to 
contraceptive services, to information related to everything from the 
rhythm method to the use of condoms to the use of the pill, all those 
things which are critical in preventing unwanted pregnancies--I think 
that the lessening of the amount of money available for that, because 
you know these organizations are not going to accept U.S. money, I 
think it is going to increase the number of abortions.
  I think this is especially so in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet 
Union, where abortion, under the Communist period, was often the method 
used for family planning. For example, in Kazakhstan, U.S. assistance 
to some two dozen clinics, Planned Parenthood-type clinics in 
Kazakhstan from 1993 to 1994, led to a 41 percent decline in the number 
of abortions performed in that country.
  Did you hear what I just said? When we were engaged in pointing out 
to the people of Kazakhstan what alternatives they had to deal with 
unwanted pregnancies other than abortion, and that information was made 
available, the number of abortions declined by 41 percent. In Russia, 
contraceptive use increased from 19 percent to 24 percent in the years 
1990 to 1994. During this period, from 1990 to 1994, the number of 
abortions dropped from 3.6 million performed in Russia to 2.8 million. 
If, like me, you want to stop abortions, you had over 800,000 fewer 
abortions in Russia because we were providing money to train and to 
make available information to Russian women and men about the use of 
contraceptives.
  But what are these organizations going to do now, when they say, if 
we give them money, they know they can't even talk to their governments 
or attend conferences and talk about abortion? They are not going to 
take the money.
  In Ukraine, the Ministry of Health reported an 8.6 percent decrease 
in abortions between January and June of 1996, which it directly 
attributes to the women's reproductive health program that began in 
1995 with U.S. funding. For every 100 abortions performed in the 6 
months before, there were 8 fewer performed in the next 6 months. Why? 
Because of population services.
  Now, look, I don't mean to, I don't intend to, and I don't pretend to 
want to engage my friend in a debate on abortion. As I said when he was 
necessarily off the floor, the only place we disagree as it relates to 
this conference report is how much of a compromise the House really 
made. I would argue essentially they made no compromise and allowed the 
President to waive in one circumstance the Mexico City restriction 
which is hardly ever used anyway. I think--I know from the 
administration's perspective and the majority of my colleagues on this 
side and about 8 or 10 on your side, that it is a larger principle of 
whether or not we can impose internationally a gag rule that can't be 
imposed nationally because of our first amendment. Again, I am not 
arguing the merits of it, but I am arguing that is enough, I think, to 
doom this conference report.
  And I will conclude by saying--and I thank my friend for 
his indulgence--but I conclude by saying the only other thing we 
probably disagree on, and only of late, is tactically what is the best 
way to get what we both want done. I think if the Senate rejects, as 
well as the President veto's threat exists, tactically that puts up 
more of a wall that says, Look, let's deal with foreign policy, not 
with Mexico City on this; pick another vehicle.

  But I want to tell you--and I don't say this to be solicitous--I 
don't know anyone who is tactically smarter, in terms of Senate 
procedure, than my friend from North Carolina. We have both been here 
the same number of years, but I do not have his knowledge

[[Page S3570]]

and experience relative to the rules. But I think I have almost as much 
of an instinct about what will motivate or not motivate our colleagues 
in the House or the Senate.
  So, again, we disagree on only two points: One, this is not much of a 
compromise on Mexico City; two, tactically I am urging my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' to make the point that this is not an easy access, to keep 
attaching this kind of language. Because it will allow, in my view, the 
leadership in the House to say, ``Look, if we want to get something 
done, let's not attach it.''
  That is my rationale. We have no disagreement on the legislation. We 
both made real compromises on the core of this. I think we both, on 
both our parts--it is presumptuous of me to say this and self-serving 
for me to say this--but think we did a good job. I think we worked the 
way one of the major newspapers in America said the way the committee 
is supposed to work. We actually heard the facts, debated it, fought it 
out, resolved it, and did what was reasonable in the outcome.
  So I say to my friend, I don't know where this will all lead except I 
am confident, either because of action on this floor or by the 
President, this conference report is not going to become law and we are 
going to have to go at this again. But I fear, as he does, time is 
awasting. It is harder each time to put Humpty-Dumpty back together 
again. Time is running out. We are moving into an election year. I do 
not in any way question his motivation. I do not in any way suggest 
that I know my tactical judgment is better than his. But I have reached 
this conclusion--and we talked about this--I have reached this 
conclusion for the reasons I have stated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, do not be misled by the modesty of the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware. He knows as much about tactics as 
anybody I have ever seen. It is true that we came here the same day. I 
think we have learned at the feet of certain masters that we have 
known. Some have gone--departed. But, anyway, it has been great working 
with the Senator. I appreciate his kind comments, and we will have to 
see how it comes out.
  Mr. President, how much time remains? I believe we had, at the 
outset, a total of 6 hours allocated. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. HELMS. How much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Helms has 2 hours 31 minutes; Senator 
Biden has--somewhat less than that.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Parliamentarian.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and I know the Senator from 
Delaware will agree--that any quorum call that occurs during this 
allotted time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, can the Chair advise the Senator from 
Vermont where we are on the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware used 50 minutes of 
the 3 hours. In consequence, to his side, there are 2 hours 10 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, is the time in control of the Senator from 
Delaware?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield as much time as my friend from 
Vermont would like, and I ask unanimous consent that since I am going 
to be absent from the floor, that he have the authority to yield any 
time he wishes as well. I have 2 hours 10 minutes left. I yield up to 2 
hours 5 minutes to my friend from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. President. I assure my friend from 
Delaware, I will not utilize all that time. I yield myself such time as 
I require within those constraints.
  Mr. President, when the Senate passed its version of the State 
authorization bill last year, it contained no reference at all to 
international family planning or the Mexico City policy, which, as we 
know, restricts U.S. Government funds to private family planning 
organizations. The reason for that was obvious. Family planning has 
nothing to do with the State authorization bill.
  This bill is about how many Assistant Secretaries of State there will 
be, the bureaus, how they are set up, and so on. It is not about 
running Planned Parenthood.
  The House saw things differently. Unfortunately, a minority in the 
House saw yet another opportunity to hold hostage important foreign 
policy legislation, and they did, like funding for the United Nations 
and the reorganization of the State Department. In doing so, they 
sought to force the President to embrace a discredited family planning 
policy he has repeatedly and publicly rejected.
  For some reason, the House seems to think that sending it down to the 
White House to get a certain veto represents some kind of victory, when 
all it does is guarantee that we will revisit this issue again and 
again and again.
  When I came to the Senate, we had members of both parties who tried 
to represent the United States in the best way possible. They would 
join in a bipartisan agreement on foreign policy, to act in ways that 
would make the United States as strong as possible.
  Somehow, in the past few years, we have some who seek to make 
political points or fill out forms on fundraising letters, or whatever, 
and they distort the foreign policy of the United States for their own 
short-term political gain. It is almost as though, with their ego, they 
feel that whatever their issue is all that matters, and the foreign 
policy of the United States can be thrown overboard. They are going to 
make their point, they are going to send out their fundraising letters, 
they are going to recruit their supporters based on how they might 
distort the foreign policy of the United States, and they could care 
less of the consequences. I will give you an example.
  An agreement was reached last year with the Republican leadership and 
the Democratic leadership of the House and the Senate and the President 
of the United States that we would pay the dues that we owe under law 
and under treaty and under agreement to the United Nations. It is money 
we agreed to pay, are legally obligated to pay, and have not paid.
  Then, on the very day that the United States was asking the Security 
Council of the United Nations to stand solidly with us on the question 
of sanctions on Iraq, on the very day that the United States was asking 
a disparate group in the Security Council to agree with us against 
Saddam Hussein and his refusal to comply with his obligations under the 
Security Council resolutions, on that same day the Republican 
leadership of the House of Representatives broke its word--broke its 
word to the President, broke its word to the United Nations, broke its 
word to the American people, broke its word to the Congress--and killed 
the bill to pay our dues to the United Nations.
  And why? Because a handful of people in the House of Representatives 
wanted to include the so-called Mexico City language that did not have 
the support of even a majority of the Senate not to mention enough 
votes to override a veto, and which the President had made 
unequivocally clear he would veto.
  The U.S. Congress should have the honesty and the maturity to put the 
interests of the country ahead of the individual political interests of 
Members. We are asked to do this often as we should be. There has to be 
some reason for serving here other than sending out fundraising letters 
or making political points. Maybe it seems novel to some, but I come 
from the old school and we Vermonters feel that the country comes 
first.
  Mr. President, it would be one thing if the only problem with the 
Mexico City policy were that it is totally nongermane to this bill, 
which it is, but it

[[Page S3571]]

is a lot worse than that. It is anti-family planning, anti-free speech, 
anti-women, anti-children, and flies in the face of the very democratic 
principles we are encouraging other countries to adopt. It is among the 
most illogical and misguided approaches to an issue I have seen in my 
time here.
  What the House has done is send us a conference report that we have 
no opportunity to amend, which contains a controversial provision that 
was not in the Senate version, that was never voted on by the Senate, 
that is certain to be vetoed and which, despite repeated attempts, has 
not won a majority of votes in the Senate for over a decade.
  Mr. President, we could simply voice vote this conference report and 
let the President veto it, but that would resolve nothing since the 
proponents of the Mexico City policy would simply play the same game 
with the IMF supplemental, and if that failed, with the other 
appropriations bills. I am waiting for them to put it on a bill dealing 
with highways or national forests or agricultural research or some 
other thing. The rules are irrelevant to them. Logic is irrelevant to 
them. Good sense is irrelevant to them. And the interests of the 
country are apparently irrelevant.
  The only way we are going to put a stop to these antics is for the 
Senate to reject the Mexico City policy altogether, for the Senate to 
stand up and say, ``We will not play these games.'' We will be the 
Nation's conscience.
  I am among those who believe we should pay our debts to the United 
Nations. If the United States gives its word that it is going to do 
something, then we should do it. We bring our children up that way. We 
tell them if they give their word, they ought to keep their word. Well, 
we are the ones who are the keepers of the word of the United States. 
When the United States gives its word, we ought to be honest enough to 
back it up.
  The United Nations is helping solve global problems that we could not 
possibly solve by ourselves, even though they are problems that affect 
the United States of America. Unfortunately, the amount authorized here 
falls far short of what we owe, and it is encumbered with too many 
restrictions.
  Others, including the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, want to reorganize the State Department. But if we pass this 
conference report with the Mexico City language, there will be no State 
reorganization because it will be vetoed and it will be held hostage by 
the House indefinitely.
  So the Senator from Vermont believes there is only one option: Defeat 
it, and send it back to the House. There are no guarantees, but that is 
our best hope of getting the Mexico City policy stricken from this bill 
so the President can sign it.
  Before I discuss what this version of the Mexico City policy would 
do, let me remind all Senators what should be common knowledge. United 
States law explicitly prohibits the use of U.S. Government funds to pay 
for abortion or to lobby for abortion. That has been the law for years. 
You wouldn't know it to hear some of the proponents of the Mexico City 
policy talk. But that is the law. We have passed it time and time 
again. We have all voted for that. In fact, the last time I believe was 
about 6 months ago.

  We will have our next opportunity to vote to reaffirm that 
prohibition on the Foreign Operations bill in a couple of months. No 
one needs to worry about where they stand on that.
  So when the proponents of the House Mexico City language say it is 
needed to ensure that taxpayer funds are not used for abortion, they 
conveniently forget to mention that our law already prohibits that. I 
remember the ``Saturday Night Live'' character Dana Carvey, who would 
say, ``Isn't that convenient.'' Well, for them it is convenient.
  Because what they really want to do is prohibit funding for private 
organizations that use their own funds for abortion even where abortion 
is legal. In fact, the version that is in this conference report goes 
even further. It would prohibit those private organizations from even 
speaking about abortion.
  Now, can't you imagine how we would all react if the Parliament or 
the Congress or ruling committee of any other country passed a law, and 
standing up they would say, ``In this law, no private organization in 
the United States can speak on a particular issue.'' Lord love us all, 
Mr. President, there would be such a flood of Senators and House 
Members to come down and say, ``How dare they, How dare they, in 
that''--and fill in the blank of whatever country it is--``How dare 
they tell the United States what to say or people in the United States 
what they can say.''
  Yet that is what the House would have us do. We would laugh them out 
of the Chamber because it would so obviously violate our first 
amendment. But we have some in the other body who do not believe that 
private organizations, even American organizations, have the right of 
free speech outside our country.
  I was going to say that they should reread our history, but it is 
apparent that I presume too much. They should simply read it. Do we 
really want to go down this road? This isn't a Democratic issue or a 
Republican issue; it is a free speech issue. It is about the right of 
people to voice their opinions as representatives of private 
organizations where it is legal to do so. It is shameful for the U.S. 
Congress, which the world looks to as a beacon of free speech and 
democracy, to even think of curtailing that right. And yet the House 
would have us do that in countries that are struggling to become more 
democratic and more free.
  What kind of an example is that? How can the same people stand up and 
say, we stand for the principles of America, except in those instances 
where they conflict with whatever our political agenda is and then we 
are willing to trample on them?
  What is described innocently as a lobby ban is in fact a gag rule 
that flies in the face of efforts to reduce unsafe abortion worldwide. 
Private organizations receiving U.S. funds would be prohibited from 
even calling attention to defects in legal abortion laws. They would be 
prohibited from trying to make abortion safer and reduce the number of 
women worldwide--hundreds of thousands of women--who die from unsafe 
abortions. Why on Earth would we want to do that?
  Members of the House argue they have made a difficult concession by 
allowing the President to waive one of the restrictions. Either they 
are joking or they assume we do not bother to read what we are voting 
on. They fail to mention that if the President exercises the waiver, 
which they fully expect him to do, scarce family planning funds would 
be cut an additional $44 million in this year alone, meaning a $224 
million cut from the 1995 level.
  What would be the consequence? Millions of women who might otherwise 
receive access to family planning would become pregnant, and there 
would be millions of abortions that otherwise would have been 
prevented. The evidence that voluntary family planning reduces 
unwarranted pregnancies and abortions is beyond dispute. It can be seen 
in every country in the world. The irony is that the provisions sent to 
us by the other body would result in more abortions, not fewer, because 
it would sharply cut funding for family planning.
  Now, let us be honest. They say they don't want abortions. That is 
fine. I respect that. Who wants abortions? I wish there would never be 
another one. But you don't accomplish that by cutting money for family 
planning. It is so logical. If you have good family planning the number 
of unwanted pregnancies goes down and the number of abortions goes 
down. You can't say, ``We don't want you to have abortions but we also 
don't want you to have contraceptives.'' Be honest. That is what it 
comes down to.
  Studies done in the United States show that the use of family 
planning reduces the probability of a woman having an abortion by a 
staggering 85 percent. In Russia, the average woman had seven abortions 
in her life, but since AID began providing modern contraceptives to 
Russia the number of abortions has gone way down and continues to go 
down.
  In Kazakhstan, AID support for family planning clinics led to a 59 
percent increase in contraceptive use and a 41 percent decrease in 
abortion among women served by the clinics. There have been similar 
declines of abortions

[[Page S3572]]

when contraceptives were made available from Latin America to eastern 
Europe. In one of the poorest countries, Bangladesh, where abortion is 
prohibited, education about contraceptives and alternatives to abortion 
has contributed to a significant reduction in fertility rates over the 
past 10 years. Even in Bangladesh, where abortion is illegal, 50,000 
women are hospitalized each year because of complications from illegal, 
unsafe abortions. Family planning funding will help reduce those 
numbers. These are women's lives that are saved. Why do the people who 
support the Mexico City language not care about them? Is it because 
they live in a different country?
  Another argument they make is that although U.S. funds are not spent 
on abortion they free up other funds that are spent on abortion. The 
old ``money is fungible'' argument. Do they really want to go down that 
road? Do they really want to say we cannot send aid to countries 
because they might use some of that aid on abortion because abortion is 
legal there? Does that mean that because abortion is legal in Israel--
we give aid to Israel, it is deposited in the Israeli Treasury--that we 
should shut off U.S. aid to Israel because other Israeli Government 
funds are used for abortion? Whoops, not going to do that, and I am not 
suggesting we should. Obviously, we are not going to cut aid to Israel 
because the Israeli Government supports abortion. But why should the 
rules be different for private citizens? If anything, they should have 
more protection to speak freely. They are not a government. They ought 
to be able to speak freely.
  Should we stop funding nuclear safety programs in Russia because 
abortion is legal there and abortions are provided at government 
hospitals? Should we say that we will put at risk the lives of 
Americans for a nuclear accident and cut off funds for nuclear safety 
programs in Russia because they won't make abortion illegal? Maybe we 
should cut off aid to any State in the United States because abortion 
is legal. That would be all 50 States.
  Of all things, family planning is something we should support. Unlike 
nuclear safety, it does help reduce the number of abortions. Yet the 
Mexico City policy would prevent us from supporting private family 
planning organizations. Crazy, absolutely crazy.
  Mr. President, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you should 
oppose the Mexico City policy. One of my best friends in the U.S. 
Senate, a man I admire greatly, a man who was a mentor to me when I 
first came to the Senate, served as chairman of our Senate 
Appropriations Committee, is now retired, the former distinguished 
senior Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield. He is strongly pro-life. 
I greatly respected Senator Mark Hatfield for that. I greatly respected 
him for a lot of things because I felt he was a man who always followed 
his conscience. He opposed the Mexico City policy not because he is 
pro-abortion, he was adamantly the other way, but because he said if 
you have family planning, especially with the U.S. prohibition against 
using it for abortion--if you have family planning the number of 
abortions will go down. He knew from the hearings we had in the 
Appropriations.
  Voting for the Mexico City policy may make for a good press release, 
but it would cut funding for family planning. It would increase the 
number of abortions. We should reject this attempt to push this 
misguided policy down our throats. We should send the bill back to the 
House.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor I want to say a final word 
about the tactics used here. These are vitally important foreign policy 
programs, but this is the second time in 6 months that the House has 
used this type of blackmail. This is the second time in 6 months a 
small group in the House has pushed their political agenda no matter 
how much damage it might do to the integrity and the word of the United 
States worldwide--last year, it was the IMF and U.N. funding; this year 
it is the U.N. funding and they are threatening again to block funding 
for the IMF. If that fails, it would be funding for disaster relief in 
Vermont or California or Minnesota, Oregon, or anywhere else.
  And all because they do not have the votes to override a veto of the 
Mexico City policy. Whatever happened to democracy, to the legislative 
process? Instead, we have a handful who prefer gridlock and blackmail. 
They shut down the Government first and now this. If it were up to them 
they would hold hostage billions of dollars for these economic and 
security programs indefinitely. No wonder the Congress is seen by so 
many Americans as an embarrassment.
  Mr. President, I have been proud to serve in the U.S. Senate for 
almost 24 years. I am proud that the people of Vermont have sent me to 
this body. In our over 200-year history, I am the only member of my 
party to ever serve in the U.S. Senate. But the other party sent great, 
great leaders that I revere and admire, people I try to emulate. The 
Senators from Vermont have always felt that the integrity of the United 
States must be protected, that the United States, when it gives its 
word, must stand by it. The first Ambassador to the United Nations was 
a Vermonter who gave up his seat in the U.S. Senate to be appointed to 
that post, to again stand up and say that when the United States gives 
its word, it keeps it.
  I hope that some--mostly in the other body, and maybe some in this 
body--will step back and say, let us worry less about our own political 
lives and our own political future, for whatever short moment that may 
be, and think in the long term for our country. None of us owns a seat 
in the U.S. Senate; I don't, the distinguished Presiding Officer 
doesn't, none of us do. It is the same in the other body. We are 
privileged and honored to represent our States for the time that we are 
here. Most of us do it with a great deal of care and in the interest of 
our State and our country. I know my friends who are on the floor here 
at this moment are all people who fall into that category.
  But there are always times when we have to say that the political 
interests we may have individually are greatly outweighed by the 
interests of the United States of America, because we will come and go, 
the country will remain, and the country can either be weakened or 
strengthened by what we do. This is a time when we ought to stand up 
and fulfill the obligations of the United States, fulfill our high 
standards, and keep our word. So in this case, I hope that this 
conference report is defeated.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate is 
the Conference Report on H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act. I take the other side of this issue. I strongly 
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support passage 
of this important foreign policy initiative.
  As Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, I spent many hours along with my 
colleagues on the Committee and with the Clinton Administration 
crafting legislation which will strengthen America's leadership role in 
the international arena.
  This Conference Report is a true ``reform'' bill. H.R.1757 abolishes 
two federal agencies and reorganizes their essential functions into the 
Department of State. It brings long overdue reform to the United 
Nations. It prioritizes our international affairs expenditures and 
authorizes important foreign policy initiatives. In fact, the core 
reforms contained in this legislation were originally approved by the 
Senate by a vote of 90-5 on June 17, 1997.
  I think it is fair to say that this is one of the most far-reaching 
and comprehensive foreign affairs bills undertaken by the Congress. 
This reflects Congressional acknowledgment of the need to create a more 
effective foreign affairs apparatus, both at home and at the UN, in 
order to confront the post-Cold War challenges to U.S. peace and 
security.
  The pending legislation is the result of a good-faith effort to 
accommodate conflicting perspectives on how we, as a nation, should 
allocate our resources. There were tough, lengthy negotiations on this 
package. We had to reconcile competing interests, and as a result, no 
one can claim that the final product contains everything that they 
would wish. I will be the first to say that this bill does not contain 
all of the reforms

[[Page S3573]]

I originally sought. I would have preferred much more in the way of 
reforms and budget discipline. But this is a good agreement; and in 
this case, we must not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  Now, let me say that I understand some on the other side of the aisle 
may vote against this bill, and the President has indicated his 
intention to veto it, because of a provision that contains a part of 
the so-called ``Mexico City'' language. Specifically, section 1816 of 
this bill would prohibit organizations that receive U.S. taxpayer 
dollars from lobbying to change abortion laws--either for or against--
overseas.
  Now, let me make clear some of the important initiatives that would 
not be enacted if this Conference Report is defeated.
  The President and the Secretary of State have indicated that payment 
of U.S. arrears to the United Nations is a top priority. This bill 
would authorize a three-year payment plan of $819 million, and an 
additional $107 million in debt reduction, to the United Nations and 
other international organizations in return for comprehensive 
management and fiscal reform of the United Nations. Rejection of this 
conference report would eliminate this funding and kill the management 
and fiscal reform measures.
  The President and the Secretary of State have agreed that a 
fundamental restructuring of U.S. foreign affairs agencies is long 
overdue. This bill eliminates the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 
and the U.S. Information Agency and folds their functions into the 
State Department, while still maintaining firewalls between the State 
Department and the essential broadcasting activities and public 
diplomacy of USIA. It also consolidates certain functions of the Agency 
for International Development into the State Department and grants the 
Secretary of State greater authority over foreign aid spending. Without 
the pending legislation, this reorganization cannot go forward.

  The Drug Czar, General McCaffrey, has agreed that keeping our 
children free from drugs is a top priority. This bill requires the 
State Department to develop and implement a comprehensive 
counternarcotics strategy. Without this bill, this important initiative 
will not go forward.
  The Secretary has been a tireless advocate for investment in the U.S. 
diplomatic infrastructure, citing examples of deplorable conditions of 
U.S. missions overseas, including ambassadors washing dishes in 
bathtubs, and outdated computer systems. This bill fully funds the 
capital investment fund and provides urgently needed resources for 
embassy construction in Berlin and Beijing.
  Containment of Saddam Hussein and support for a democratic movement 
in Iraq are essential to advancing democracy in the Gulf. This bill 
authorizes programs to assist a democratic Iraqi resistance, to create 
a Radio Free Iraq broadcast, and to reconstruct communities not under 
the control of Saddam Hussein. None of these programs will be 
authorized if this legislation is not enacted.
  Mr. President, this Conference Report lays out comprehensive and 
achievable reforms, both here at home in the nation's foreign affairs 
bureaucracy and in the United Nations. My visits to the U.N. as the 
U.S. Congressional Delegate to the U.N. General Assembly served to 
reinforce my commitment to salvage this organization. In this age, any 
organization burdened with a bloated bureaucracy and no mechanisms to 
control spending, will collapse under the weight of its own 
inefficiency. If we do not take a leadership role in reforming the U.N. 
now, a powerful, entrenched U.N. bureaucracy looking after its own 
short-term interests may condemn the U.N. to irrelevance as we move 
into the 21st Century.

  When Secretary of State Albright was serving as Ambassador to the 
U.N., she warned that ``poor management'' could be the U.N.'s 
``Achilles' heel'' saying, `` I cannot justify to the taxpayers of my 
country some of the personnel arrangements, the sweetheart pension 
deals, the lack of accountability, the waste of resources, the 
duplication of effort and the lack of attention to the bottom line we 
often see around here.''
  Well, Congress cannot justify these excesses to the American 
taxpayers either. That is why we have stepped forward with a bipartisan 
reform plan that will compel the United Nations to address these 
concerns. As I stated previously, the pending legislation provides a 
three-year payment of $819 million in arrears to the United Nations and 
$107 million in debt reduction that the U.N. owes that U.S. in 
conjunction with the achievement of specific benchmarks that will help 
enhance the vitality of the U.N.
  Mr. President, this bill also takes steps to address another concern 
of mine, and that is the move to ensure that survivors of torture will 
be treated with the compassion which they deserve. One provision that I 
authored prohibits the involuntary return of any person to a country in 
which there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would 
be in danger of being subjected to torture. Another provision 
authorizes the U.S. to contribute $3 million in fiscal 1998 and another 
$3 million in fiscal year 1999 to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for 
Victims of Torture, ensuring that treatment centers in more than 50 
countries will continue to receive support.
  The United States should take a leading role in encouraging the 
establishment of additional programs, both at home and abroad, for the 
treatment of torture survivors. My home state of Minnesota is fortunate 
to have the first comprehensive treatment center in the United States 
for survivors of torture. The Center for Victims of Torture has treated 
over 500 patients since it was established in 1985, and has enabled 
them to become productive members of our communities by overcoming the 
atrocities suffered in their countries of origin. We must continue to 
support treatment centers, like the one in Minnesota, which help those 
who cannot help themselves--survivors of torture. Dedicating more of 
our U.N. voluntary funds for this purpose will help provide this 
important service to more needy survivors.

  I strongly believe the U.N. is an important forum for debate between 
member states and a vehicle for joint action when warranted. It is not 
a world government. However, the U.N. must endorse reforms that provide 
transparency and accountability so it is embraced as an important world 
forum for discussion and for coordinating action to promote 
international peace and security, not as a world government. I firmly 
believe that this package will improve the U.N. and assist it in 
winning back public support in the United States.

  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I commend 
the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his diligence and 
perseverance in achieving this comprehensive reform plan.
  Little has changed since the Senate approved this legislation last 
November by voice vote, and last July by a vote of 90-5. It certainly 
would be disappointing, and I believe short-sighted, now to reject 
reorganization, payment of U.N. arrears, and other key foreign policy 
initiatives because the President has decided that single-issue 
politics is more important than U.S. foreign policy interests. My 
colleagues should heed the warning of the Secretary of State that 
failure to pay the U.N. arrears would result in a ``shutdown for our 
national security policy.'' If this is the case, then it would be 
irresponsible to reject these funds because of opposition to the 
prohibition on U.S. aid recipients against lobbying foreign governments 
to change their abortion laws. Mr. President, this legislation advances 
key American foreign policy interests, and I hope that all of my 
colleagues will support its passage.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are several provisions in this 
conference report which trouble me greatly. For example, the bill 
abolishes the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and merges its 
functions into the Department of State. As one who has always believed 
that there are sensible ways to reorganize our foreign affairs 
agencies, I do not oppose this merger. However, I am concerned that the 
bill fails to augment the State Department's budget in fiscal year 1999 
to ensure that the vital activities for which ACDA is now responsible 
will continue. The bill also perpetuates and increases funding for 
international broadcasting activities--an approach

[[Page S3574]]

which, in my view, is not the most effective use of scarce resources at 
a time when there are so many other sources of information available 
globally. However, the main reason why I am going to vote against this 
conference report is that it imposes unacceptable conditions on funding 
for international family planning organizations.
  Section 1816 of the bill was offered by Congressman Chris Smith in a 
sham conference process in which no Democrat from the Senate or the 
House was invited to participate. It has been billed by its author as a 
so-called ``compromise'' to bridge the gap between the House, which has 
voted to reinstate the Mexico City policy of the Reagan and Bush 
administrations, and the Senate, which has repeatedly supported the 
Clinton Administration's decision to abandon it. The Mexico City policy 
ended assistance to private family planning organizations overseas if 
the organization was involved in voluntary abortion activities even if 
US funds were not used for such activities. Of course, since 1973 US 
funding for abortions overseas has been banned by law and international 
family planning organizations have been prohibited from using US funds 
to pay for abortions. Even abortion opponents agree that there is no 
direct US funding of abortions abroad.
  Make no mistake about it. The Smith provision is no compromise. 
First, it tries to dictate how foreign family planning organizations 
use their own funds by mandating that no US population assistance may 
be given to any foreign organization unless the organization certifies 
that it will not use its own funds to counsel or perform abortions. If 
the President exercises the waiver of this provision, funding for 
family planning activities will be cut by $44 million.
  Far worse, however, is the expanded ban on lobbying which amounts to 
a gag rule on organizations receiving US population funding. The Smith 
provision prohibits funding for any foreign organization that ``engages 
in any activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies of 
any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which abortion 
is permitted, regulated or prohibited.'' The statement of managers 
makes it clear that the phrase ``alter the laws or governmental 
policies'' is broadened well beyond traditional lobbying to include 
``sponsoring conferences, and workshops on the alleged defects of the 
abortion laws, as well as the drafting and distribution of materials or 
public statements calling attention to such alleged defects.'' In other 
words, under this prohibition, which is not waivable, any foreign 
organization which dares to enter a legitimate public policy debate on 
the abortion issue in its own country would be denied US family 
planning assistance.
  The lobby ban in the Smith amendment is anti-democratic in every 
sense of the word. As Secretary of State Albright has said, it is 
``basically a gag rule that would punish organizations for engaging in 
the democratic process in foreign countries and for engaging in legal 
activities that would be protected by the First Amendment if carried 
out in the United States.'' It sacrifices free speech, a right we 
Americans hold dear, for ideological purposes on the abortion issue.
  This gag rule harkens back to the old days of American imperialism by 
telling others in foreign countries what they can and cannot say and 
do. It runs counter to our long held belief in pluralism, open 
political processes and democratic participation, and it undermines a 
central tenet of our foreign policy: encouraging democratic political 
practices abroad and participation by non governmental organizations in 
those processes.
  The Mexico City provision in this conference report, with its gag 
rule, will not reduce the number of abortions but rather increase it. 
The effect of this provision, if enacted, would be to cut funding for 
family planning programs, thereby decreasing access to the most 
effective means of reducing abortion.
  Finally, Mr. President, I think it is a travesty that the 
reorganization of our foreign affairs agencies--an issue on which the 
Administration and the Congress have finally found common ground after 
much disagreement--and our efforts to pay our debts at the United 
Nations and promote much-needed reform in that body are being held 
hostage to a domestic issue which is irrelevant to the substance and 
goals of this bill. This is not the proper place or the proper time to 
engage yet again in a debate over Mexico City. For this reason alone, I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed 
as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Lieberman pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
216 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and 
Senate Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be able 
to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 1982 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the conference report 
to accompany H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring 
Act.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, has the Pastore rule run its course for the day?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will not expire until 1:20 today.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I therefore ask unanimous consent that I may 
speak out of order for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________