[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 132 (Monday, September 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8097-H8101]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, FISCAL YEAR 1998
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of
September 26, 1997, I call up the resolution (H.J. Res. 94) making
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 94 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 94
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the following sums are hereby appropriated, out of any
money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, and out of
applicable corporate or other revenues, receipts, and funds,
for the several departments, agencies, corporations, and
other organizational units of Government for the fiscal year
1998, and for other purposes, namely:
Sec. 101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1997 for continuing
projects or activities including the costs of direct loans
and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically provided for
in this joint resolution) which were conducted in the fiscal
year 1997 and for which appropriations, funds, or other
authority would be available in the following appropriations
Acts:
The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1998;
The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998,
notwithstanding section 15 of the State Department Basic
Authorities Act of 1956, section 701 of the United States
Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, section 313
of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994
and 1995 (Public Law 103-236), and section 53 of the Arms
Control and Disarmament Act;
The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998,
notwithstanding section 504(a)(1) of the National Security
Act of 1947;
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1998, the
House and Senate reported versions of which shall be deemed
to have passed the House and the Senate respectively as of
October 1, 1997, for the purposes of this joint resolution,
unless a reported version is passed as of October 1, 1997, in
which case the passed version shall be used in place of the
reported version for the purposes of this joint resolution;
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1998;
The Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriations Act, 1998, notwithstanding section 10
of Public Law 91-672 and section 15(a) of the State
Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956;
The Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1998;
The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998;
The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1998;
The Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1998;
The Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 1998;
The Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1998; and
The Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act,
1998:
Provided, That, whenever the amount which would be made
available for the authority which would be granted in these
Acts as passed by the House and Senate as of October 1, 1997,
is different than that which would be available or granted
under current operations, the pertinent project or activity
shall be continued at a rate for operations not exceeding the
current rate: Provided further, That whenever the amount of
the budget request is less than the amount for current
operations and the amount which would be made available or
the authority which would be granted in these appropriations
Acts as passed by the House and Senate as of October 1, 1997,
is less than the amount for current operations, then the
pertinent project or activity shall be continued at a rate
for operations not exceeding the greater of the rates that
would be provided by the amount of the budget request or the
amount which would be made available or the authority which
would be granted in these appropriations Acts: Provided
further, That whenever there is no amount made available
under any of these appropriations Acts as passed by the House
and Senate as of October 1, 1997, for a continuing project
or activity which was conducted in fiscal year 1997 and
for which there is fiscal year 1998 funding included in
the budget request, the pertinent project or activity
shall be continued at a rate for operations not exceeding
the lesser of the rates that would be provided by the
amount of the budget request or the rate for current
operations under the authority and conditions provided in
the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year
1997.
(b) Whenever the amount which would be made available or
the authority which would be granted under an Act listed in
this section as passed by the House as of October 1, 1997, is
different from that which would be available or granted under
such Act as passed by the Senate as of October 1, 1997, the
pertinent project or activity shall be continued at a rate
for operations not exceeding the current rate under the
appropriation, fund, or authority granted by the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1998 and under the
authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1997: Provided, That
whenever the amount of the budget request is less than the
amount for current operations and the amounts which would be
made available or the authority which would be granted in
these appropriations Acts as passed by the House and the
Senate as of October 1, 1997, are both less than the amount
for current operations, then the pertinent project or
activity shall be continued at a rate for operations not
exceeding the greater of the rates that would be provided by
the amount of the budget request or the amount which would be
made available or the authority which would be granted in the
applicable appropriations Act as passed by the House or as
passed by the Senate under the appropriation, fund, or
authority provided in the applicable appropriations Act for
the fiscal year 1998 and under the authority and conditions
provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal
year 1997.
(c) Whenever an Act listed in this section has been passed
by only the House or only the Senate as of October 1, 1997,
the pertinent project or activity shall be continued under
the appropriation, fund, or authority granted by the one
House at a rate for operations not exceeding the current rate
under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable
appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1997: Provided, That
whenever the amount of the budget request is less than the
amount for current operations and the amounts which would be
made available or the authority which would be granted in the
appropriations Act as passed by the one House as of October
1, 1997, is less than the amount for current operations, then
the pertinent project or activity shall be continued at a
rate for operations not exceeding the greater of the rates
that would be provided by the amount of the budget request or
the amount which would be made available or the authority
which would be granted in the applicable appropriations Act
as passed by the one House under the appropriation, fund, or
authority provided in the applicable appropriations Act for
the fiscal year 1998 and under the authority and conditions
provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal
year 1997: Provided further, That whenever there is no amount
made available under any of these appropriations Acts as
passed by the House or the Senate as of October 1, 1997, for
a continuing project or activity which was conducted in
fiscal year 1997 and for which there is fiscal year 1998
funding included in the budget request, the pertinent project
or activity shall be continued at a rate for operations not
exceeding the lesser of the rates that would be provided by
the amount of the budget request or the rate for current
operations under the authority and conditions provided in the
applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1997.
Sec. 102. No appropriation or funds made available or
authority granted pursuant to section 101 for the Department
of Defense shall be used for new production of items not
funded for production in fiscal year 1997 or prior years, for
the increase in production rates above those sustained with
fiscal year 1997 funds, or to initiate, resume, or continue
any project, activity, operation, or organization which are
defined as any project, subproject, activity, budget
activity, program element, and subprogram within a program
element and for investment items are further defined as a P-1
line item in a budget activity within an appropriation
account and an R-1 line item which includes a program element
and subprogram element within an appropriation account, for
which appropriations, funds, or other authority were not
available during the fiscal year 1997: Provided, That no
appropriation or funds made available or authority granted
pursuant to section 101 for the Department of Defense shall
be used to initiate multi-year procurements utilizing advance
procurement funding for economic order quantity procurement
unless specifically appropriated later.
Sec. 103. Appropriations made by section 101 shall be
available to the extent and in the manner which would be
provided by the pertinent appropriations Act.
Sec. 104. No appropriation or funds made available or
authority granted pursuant to section 101 shall be used to
initiate or resume any project or activity for which
appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available
during the fiscal year 1997.
Sec. 105. No provision which is included in an
appropriations Act enumerated in section
[[Page H8098]]
101 but which was not included in the applicable
appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997 and which by its
terms is applicable to more than one appropriation, fund, or
authority shall be applicable to any appropriation, fund, or
authority provided in this joint resolution.
Sec. 106. Unless otherwise provided for in this joint
resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act,
appropriations and funds made available and authority granted
pursuant to this joint resolution shall be available until
(a) enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or
activity provided for in this joint resolution, or (b) the
enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act by
both Houses without any provision for such project or
activity, or (c) October 23, 1997, whichever first occurs.
Sec. 107. Appropriations made and authority granted
pursuant to this joint resolution shall cover all obligations
or expenditures incurred for any program, project, or
activity during the period for which funds or authority for
such project or activity are available under this joint
resolution.
Sec. 108. Expenditures made pursuant to this joint
resolution shall be charged to the applicable appropriation,
fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such
applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained
is enacted into law.
Sec. 109. No provision in the appropriations Act for the
fiscal year 1998 referred to in section 101 of this Act that
makes the availability of any appropriation provided therein
dependent upon the enactment of additional authorizing or
other legislation shall be effective before the date set
forth in section 106(c) of this joint resolution.
Sec. 110. Appropriations and funds made available by or
authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution may be
used without regard to the time limitations for submission
and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513 of
title 31, United States Code, but nothing herein shall be
construed to waive any other provision of law governing the
apportionment of funds.
Sec. 111. This joint resolution shall be implemented so
that only the most limited funding action of that permitted
in the joint resolution shall be taken in order to provide
for continuation of projects and activities.
Sec. 112. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, except section 106, for those programs that had
high initial rates of operation or complete distribution of
fiscal year 1997 appropriations at the beginning of that
fiscal year because of distributions of funding to States,
foreign countries, grantees or others, similar distributions
of funds for fiscal year 1998 shall not be made and no grants
shall be awarded for such programs funded by this resolution
that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.
Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, except section 106, the amount made available to
the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the heading
Salaries and Expenses, shall include, in addition to direct
appropriations, the amount it collects under the fee rate and
offsetting collection authority contained in Public Law 104-
208, which fee rate and offsetting collection authority shall
reman in effect during the period of this joint resolution.
Sec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, except section 106, the rate for operations for
projects and activities that would be funded under the
heading ``International Organizations and Conferences,
Contributions to International Organizations'' in the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, shall be the
amount provided by the provisions of section 101 multiplied
by the ratio of the number of days covered by this resolution
to 365.
Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, except section 106, the amounts made available
for the following new programs authorized by the National
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Act of 1997,
Public Law 105-33, shall be the higher of the amounts in the
budget request or the House or Senate District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 1998, passed as of October 1, 1997,
multiplied by the ratio of the number of days covered by this
joint resolution to 365: Federal Contribution to the
Operations of the Nation's Capital; Federal Payment to the
District of Columbia Corrections Trustee Operations; Payment
to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee for
Correctional Facilities, Construction and Repair, and Federal
Payment to the District of Columbia Criminal Justice System:
Provided, That the amounts made available for the last item
shall be made available to the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration in the District of Columbia; the District of
Columbia Truth in Sentencing Commission; the Pretrial
Services, Defense Services, Parole, Adult Probation, and
Offender Supervision Trustee; and the United States Parole
Commission as appropriate.
Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, except section 106, the authorities provided
under subsection (a) of section 140 of the Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law
103-236) shall remain in effect during the period of this
Act, notwithstanding paragraphs (3) and (5) of said
subsection.
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint
resolution, except section 106, the authorities provided
under 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1187) shall remain in effect during the period of this joint
resolution, notwithstanding subsection (f) of said section.
Sec. 118. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4026) is amended in section 1319 by striking
``September 30, 1997'' and inserting ``October 23, 1997'' and
in section 1336 by striking ``September 30, 1996'' and
inserting ``October 23, 1997''.
Sec. 119. Notwithstanding section 204 of the Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 related
to the latest maturity date for the short-term Treasury
advances, the District of Columbia government may delay
repayment of the 1997 Treasury advances beyond October 1,
1997 until it receives the full year Federal contribution, as
authorized by section 11601 of the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997,
Public Law 105-33. Any interest or penalties that would
generally apply to such late payments are hereby waived under
this provision
Sec. 120. In addition to the amounts made available for the
Veterans Health Administration, Medical Care account pursuant
to section 101 of this joint resolution, this account is also
available for necessary administrative and legal expenses of
the Department for collecting and removing amounts owed the
Department as authorized under 38 U.S.C. chapter 17, and the
Federal Medical Care Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 2651 et seq.
Sec. 121. Notwithstanding section 235(a)(3) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2195(a)(3)), the authority
of section 235(a)(1) and (2), of the same Act, shall remain
in effect during the period of this joint resolution.
Sec. 122. Section 7 of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945
(12 U.S.C. 635f) is amended by striking ``1997'' and
inserting ``October 23, 1997''.
Sec. 123. Section 506(c) of Public Law 103-317 is amended
by striking ``September 30, 1997'' and inserting ``October
23, 1997''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Friday, September 26, 1997, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will
control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
General Leave
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Joint Resolution 94 and that I might include tabular and
extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of a point of order, I would
like to make sure I understood properly.
{time} 1730
Mr. Speaker, did the Chair say that each side would be provided with
30 minutes to debate this issue?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman is correct. The
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will control 30 minutes and
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will control 30 minutes.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not anticipate using that
time, but I ask unanimous consent that we each cede 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], who has a concern about a
provision in the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher] will control 10 minutes.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, fiscal year 1998 begins tomorrow. The Congress has not
presented all 13 regular appropriations bills to the President. Because
these bills will not be enacted by tomorrow night, it is necessary now
to proceed with a short term continuing resolution, and I emphasize
that, short-term continuing resolution so that the Government can
continue to operate while we finish our work.
Currently we have concluded a conference on five bills and six more
are in conference and we are making good progress, but we need a little
bit more time.
While I wish I were here today speaking on the last of the 13
conference reports that we will need to approve, unfortunately, I am
not. But I am also not here to despair that the process is broken and
that we are facing a stalemate or Government shutdown. Even though we
are here with a continuing
[[Page H8099]]
resolution, this resolution will be signed and we will get our
appropriations work completed in the near future.
Why are we not finished? Well, last year we passed our first bill on
May 30, and this year we passed our first bill on July 8. This year, we
withheld action on our appropriations bills pending the disposition of
the budget agreement. It took awhile, but it finally came. And though
we started late, it was worth it because the agreement gave us the
confidence to develop bills within an overall funding agreement. This
is also the reason that I believe we will be able to get our work
completed in the near future.
This continuing resolution is slightly different than those of the
past. The basic rate is the current rate of 1997 bills. Previous ones
used were slightly more restrictive rates. However, this should not
jeopardize final funding rates because the continuing resolution is a
short-term one, and we take precautions to lower or restrict those
current rates that might be too high or higher than finally agreed to.
Also, the traditional restrictions such as no new starts and 1997 terms
and conditions are included. The expiration date is October 23, 1997,
and that should give us time to complete our work.
Earlier this year there was extensive debate about enacting an
automatic continuing resolution so that we would not have to be here
now on this bill. The argument went something like: If there is an
automatic continuing resolution, then there will never be a
controversial rider attached to a short-term continuing resolution that
will cause a Government shutdown. My answer to that is if we do not
want a Government shutdown, then develop noncontroversial continuing
resolutions. Besides, if any of the proposed automatic continuing
resolutions, or CR's, had been enacted, we would still be here today
because we would have needed some additional provisions because of
funding anomalies.
Every CR that has ever been developed has had anomalies; it is just
the nature of the beast. Account structures change, new initiatives
need to be started, restrictions need to be imposed. Every CR needs to
be fine-tuned for each circumstance. Automatic pilots will not work.
Good-faith negotiations will work, and Government shutdowns do not need
to occur in those situations.
I should point out that there is a provision in this CR that extends
section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for 23 days.
There is some controversy about extending this provision, as will be
noted by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. This CR would
only provide a very limited extension, though, to that provision that
would otherwise expire tomorrow night. This should give the Congress
time to address this matter in a more direct way, given the fact that
we are extending it only for 3 weeks. For this reason, we have included
it in this continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, while I am disappointed that we have to be here at all
with a continuing resolution, this is the right kind of a short-term CR
that we should be doing. It will be signed, and we can complete our
work, so I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations, and I rise to congratulate the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, and the ranking member.
Clearly, for those of us who represent large numbers of Federal
employees, September 30 is always a traumatic day for them to face. In
fact I think both sides of the aisle have agreed that we are not going
to put them at risk as we move through the appropriations process
trying to get our work done on time, and I just wanted to come to the
floor to say that I, for one, and I know all of the other Members on
both sides appreciate the fact that we are moving on when nobody
intends to shut down the Federal Government, to do our business, to
resolve our differences in an orderly and productive fashion. I thank
the chairman and I thank the ranking member for this time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Included in this continuing resolution is a 3-week extension of a
temporary provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act known as
section 245(i). This provision was snuck into the law 3 years ago. If
we do not permit it to expire, it will destroy the integrity of the
legal immigration process into the United States and nullify the
Illegal Immigration Reform Act that we just passed last year.
Three years ago the Democrat leadership engaged in an undemocratic
tactic to get this provision into law. At that time I begged the
Committee on Rules not to waive points of order against putting into
our immigration law section 245(i), or what I called the Kennedy
loophole. This provision, establishing a 3-year period in which illegal
aliens could become legal while staying in the United States, was not
considered separately by either House of the Congress, but instead was
inserted during conference negotiations on the Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations bill.
To date, there has only been one time in which either Chamber has
voted on this provision. That was when the House adopted my amendment
last year to repeal 245(i) a year before it was scheduled to expire on
September 30, 1997. Ultimately, the conferees dropped my amendment,
which, of course, was the only one that was ever voted on in this
House, arguing that the other provisions of the Illegal Immigration
Reform Act were being phased in and that 245(i) would expire anyway. I
was stunned to learn that the continuing resolution, this continuing
resolution, provides for an extension of 245(i).
Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why 245(i) are bad for this
country, and our Members should know about this. Number one, it
contradicts the Illegal Immigration Reform Act passed last year by
inviting people who are illegally in this country to participate in a
system that will encourage even more people to come illegally into this
country.
Mr. Speaker, 245(i) rewards individuals who either snuck across our
borders or who overstayed their visas by allowing them to pay $1,000 to
the INS and have their status changed from illegal to legal. This is
blatantly unfair to the millions of people around the world who abide
by our laws, go through the proper screening process, and they are
doing this in their own countries, they are waiting in line there, and
wait their turn to become American residents.
Mr. Speaker, 245(i) is a slap in the face to these people who are
obeying our laws and trying to come here legally. It makes a joke out
of our legal immigration system and sends the clear message that if one
is abiding by our laws and waiting one's turn in their own country to
come here, that person is a fool. Why wait one's turn in one's own
country when one can break the laws of the United States, come here and
pay $1,000 and basically be moved to the front of the line.
Extending 245(i) also raises serious national security questions.
Unlike those who enter the United States legally, 245(i) applicants are
not required to go through the same criminal history checks as they do
go through in their home countries when they are awaiting their turn to
come here legally.
Consular officers located in the applicant's home country, along with
foreign national employees working for the State Department, are in the
best position to determine if an applicant has a criminal background or
is some kind of a national security risk. Consulates abroad are more
knowledgeable. They speak the local language; they know the different
criminal justice systems in those countries. They are the ones who
should be screening people before they come to the United States, so
that we do not have criminals and terrorists coming to the United
States, not being screened, and end up paying $1,000 to be put in the
front of the line.
This is absurd that we are doing this, and again, the only time we
voted on this, we voted it down.
[[Page H8100]]
Those who support the extension of 245(i) maintain that allowing it
to expire will force undue hardship on these illegal aliens by breaking
up their families. Well, we are also breaking up the families of the
people who are standing in line and have families here in the United
States, who are waiting their turn and going through the legal
processes. There are just as many families being broken up; we are just
saying the people who come here illegally, we are going to care about
them, but not the ones standing in line who want to come and join their
families in the United States. Some of those people have been waiting
years to come here legally.
Proponents of 245(i) also maintain that the provision only applies to
those who are already eligible for permanent resident status. The same
millions of people around the world, by the way, we are talking about,
they are eligible for permanent residency status. These people have
been waiting in line and waiting in line. All we are doing, again, is
we are picking the people who have broken the law to move to the head
of the line and giving them benefits that we are not giving to people
who are obeying the law and waiting their turn in line.
It is time to be honest about this provision. The reason 245(i) still
exists is because it raises money for the INS. Those are the people who
get that $1,000; and it lightens the caseload of our consulates abroad.
Funding for the INS, and lightening the State Department's workload,
these are separate issues. Sneaking provisions into the law to
encourage illegal immigration is not the way that we should raise money
for the INS or lighten the workload for the State Department.
Mr. Speaker, we are a nation of immigrants and the citizens of this
country are a fair people and we welcome newcomers with open arms. This
is not about legal immigration; this is about government-sponsored
illegal activity so that the INS can make a buck.
Last year we promised our constituents that we would no longer take
their money to pay for an immigration system that is unfair, randomly
applied and contradictory. We told our constituents that we would no
longer support a system which rewards those who break our law. That was
the essence of what we were trying to do. We promised them that this
country's immigration system would embody the principles that have
drawn would-be Americans to our country for centuries, meaning fairness
and equity.
Are we going to extend this provision which makes a mockery of
fairness and equity? Are we going to break the promise that we made to
the American people and provide this incredible loophole, in which
hundreds of thousands if not over 1 million people who are in this
country legally will be able to stay in this country at the expense of
other people who have been waiting in line, waiting their legal turn?
{time} 1745
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider voting ``no'' on the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from San
Diego, CA [Mr. Horn].
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] for the eloquence with which he has
approached this subject. He is absolutely correct on every single
point. It is shameful to have this provision in, where people illegally
here, by paying $1,000 or whatever, can now get into this country.
The gentleman is also correct, when we go around the world and see
many of our friends in the Philippines, for example, long, long lines.
They have pursued immigration here legally. This undercuts, of course,
what we did in Simpson-Mazzoli, long before I got here. As everybody in
this Chamber knows, it was a great law, but the implementation was
gutted.
The result of that is that people come here illegally, and gain us
more congressional districts in California, I will say to my friends
east of the Sierras. If they do not want to help us on this, just plan
on losing a few more seats out of New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky.
Last time I think we took two from Pennsylvania, one from Kentucky, and
so on. So we need the Members' help. It is wrong. Let us straighten it
out today.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of fairness and of common
sense. I know those words may seem extreme to some people in this
House. Fairness is the issue. There are people who are playing by the
rules waiting to enter this country legally. They do not get an option
to buy their way into a fast track.
Common sense says we do not reward people for breaking the law, and
do not give them vehicles for people breaking the law that are not
available to those who play by the rules. I want every Member here who
voted for the immigration reform bill last year to remember this
provision is a veto of the most commonsense part of that bill that says
we will stop rewarding people for breaking our laws and coming here
illegally.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
San Diego, [Mr. Duke Cunningham]. Perhaps if he has some other things
to say some other Members might yield him another minute or two.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, we need to differentiate
between legal and illegal. The United States of America has more legal
entrants than all the other countries put together. That is good.
However, where we must draw the line is illegal immigration. It is
beyond me. The thing that both sides of the aisle fight over all the
time is legislation that slips in in the dark of night, when no one is
around, by unanimous consent. That is how this was put into this bill.
That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. This provision to allow illegals to
remain in this country, the only thing they should have is a ticket out
of here, illegals out of the United States of America, period. If we
take a look at how over the period of time that immigration has
rewarded the United States, that is good.
I just returned from the Philippines. The State Department is
overwhelmed by visas from people trying to come into this country
legally. We need to support that, Mr. Speaker, and take out this
provision. We do not have the votes to beat this, but we should have an
up-or-down vote on this provision.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say, this is not a piece of legislation
to extend the Immigration Service. This is a piece of legislation to
keep the Government open so we do not shut down the Government, either
on purpose or by accident.
I would point out that the fiscal year starts in 2 days, and there
are only 9 legislative days left between now and the expiration of the
concurrent resolution, which we now have before us. So I think we need
to find the fastest possible way to resolve differences and finish
these bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I simply would add that the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey] is absolutely correct. This is a bill which extends the
opportunity for Government to keep from shutting down because those
appropriations bills which have not yet been signed into law can and
will be within the 3 weeks allotted by this bill.
The fact that the immigration issue is involved only extends what has
been lawful for the last several years for 3 specific weeks. In that 3
weeks, I hope that the opponents of these provisions can meet their
demands and satisfy their concerns.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this continuing
resolution.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for House
Joint Resolution 94, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1997.
This resolution provides temporary funding, beginning October 1,
1997, and lasting until either October 23 or when the relevant bill is
singed into law, whichever comes first. The continuing resolution funds
ongoing projects at current rates, except for those for which both the
President and Congress have proposed reduced funding.
The joint resolution also allows payment for the administrative costs
of the user fee program of the Veterans Administrative Medicare Care
Program.
This short-term measure would allow the Congress to continue its
important work of passing appropriations bills while not dangerously
bringing the Government to a halt. I
[[Page H8101]]
strongly opposed the Government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, as it had a
direct effect on many of my constituents in western New York.
Last year, many Federal workers in my district were forced to stay
home from work and did not receive a paycheck for months. This
resolution will see to it that this type of situation is averted. Many
of my constituents also were unable to obtain passports, iron out
problems with their deserved benefits, or enjoy visiting our national
parks while on vacation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). All time for debate has expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, September 26, 1997, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was refused.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that
a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 355,
nays 57, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 461]
YEAS--355
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NAYS--57
Baker
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bilbray
Bono
Campbell
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cubin
Deal
DeLay
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Ewing
Gallegly
Gillmor
Goode
Graham
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Horn
Hunter
Jones
Largent
Manzullo
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Neumann
Norwood
Paul
Pickett
Riley
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Stearns
Stump
Taylor (MS)
Traficant
Wamp
NOT VOTING--21
Barcia
Conyers
Cooksey
Ensign
Fattah
Flake
Foglietta
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Harman
Hefner
Hinchey
Jenkins
Neal
Pallone
Quinn
Rangel
Schiff
Stenholm
Watkins
Young (FL)
{time} 1809
Mr. McINNIS, Mr. MANZULLO, Mrs. CHENOWETH, and Mr. Campbell changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida and Mr. SANDLIN changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________