[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10185-S10204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S. 
1156, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1156) making appropriations for the Government 
     of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
     in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Coats modified amendment No. 1249, to provide scholarship 
     assistance for District of Columbia elementary and secondary 
     school students.
       Wyden amendment No. 1250, to establish that it is the 
     standing order of the Senate that a Senator who objects to a 
     motion or matter shall disclose the objection in the 
     Congressional Record.
       Graham-Mack-Kennedy amendment No. 1252, to provide relief 
     to certain aliens who would otherwise be subject to removal 
     from the United States.
       Mack-Graham-Kennedy amendment No. 1253 (to amendment No. 
     1252), in the nature of a substitute.


                           Amendment No. 1249

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Coats amendment 
No. 1249. Who yields time?
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I am pleased that over the last few days we have had the 
opportunity to debate what I think is a very vital and very important 
issue, particularly one that affects low-income children in the 
District of Columbia. We have had a number of debates on the Senate 
floor on the question of vouchers for students to have a choice to 
attend another school because the parents do not feel the school their 
child is in is providing the education they need to succeed.

[[Page S10186]]

  We have a particularly acute situation in the District of Columbia 
whereby a number of children find themselves trapped in schools, in 
particularly low-income, primarily minority neighborhoods, with 
virtually no way out. We know that many aspire to be pro athletes, and 
I join that group that aspires to do that, but unfortunately God only 
gives a very select few the kind of talent to do that. Education is one 
of the primary ways for young people to better their circumstances, 
particularly in situations where children of limited means or 
practically no means find themselves locked in a situation that gives 
them no choice. Then their opportunities for meaningful and gainful 
employment in the workplace or for continued education to give them 
better opportunities is forfeited.
  The D.C. Scholarship Program is something that Senator Lieberman and 
I have coauthored and have worked to pass. We are moving toward a very 
important vote at 11 o'clock that will allow us to continue the debate, 
which I think is not just a debate focused on this bill but a debate 
that this Senate, Congress, the President, and the entire country 
should be engaging in: How do we improve our education system? It has 
been nearly a decade and a half since the report ``A Nation at Risk.'' 
That report cited the mediocrity of American public education. There 
have been a number of reforms that have taken place in different parts 
of the country, but it seems that those who are left behind are those 
who occupy low-income homes, mostly minority students in failing 
schools, urban school systems.
  Now, our goal is not to replace the public school system in the 
District of Columbia or anywhere else. Clearly, given the number of 
students we have, the limited availability of private schools, we need 
to find ways to strengthen the public school system. We believe that 
this offers an opportunity to provide that impetus, that spur, to help 
move along the necessary reforms in the D.C. public school system. We 
also believe it offers an opportunity to 2,000 children in the District 
to better their situation, to utilize the voucher to provide an 
opportunity for a better education. So this bill would provide 
scholarships for 2,000 young people in grades K through 12 in the 
District of Columbia that are at or below 185 percent of poverty. It 
would also provide tutoring help for those who chose to stay within the 
public schools but needed some assistance in terms of reading and math.

  Mr. President, I yield at this particular time. I know we have a 
limited amount of time. Senator Lieberman and I will be dividing that 
time up, and I believe we have one or two other speakers on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, I oppose the voucher amendment to the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill. Students in the District of Columbia 
deserve good public schools, safe public schools, well-trained teachers 
and a decent education. Vouchers will undermine all of these essential 
goals by undermining the public schools, not helping them.
  Vouchers will simply subsidize private school tuition for 3 percent 
of the students in the public schools and leave the other 97 percent of 
the students even worse off. Public funds should be used for public 
school reforms that help all students, not to pay for a few public 
school students to attend private and religious schools. Our goal is to 
improve public schools, not encourage families to abandon them.
  We all want the children of the District of Columbia to get the best 
possible education. We should be doing more, much more, to support 
efforts to improve the local schools in the District. We should oppose 
any plan that would undermine these efforts.
  A year ago, as part of an overall effort to deal more effectively 
with the serious financial and other challenges facing the District of 
Columbia, Gen. Julius Becton was appointed to improve the D.C. schools. 
General Becton asked for $87 million to make the critical repairs 
necessary to ensure that all schools would be ready to open for the 
1997-98 school year on time, yet only $50 million was appropriated by 
Congress to repair the schools. Requests for additional funding were 
initially denied and were only made available by Congress at the last 
minute. So Congress bears part of the responsibility for the continuing 
problems of the D.C. schools, including the festering problems that led 
to the embarrassing delayed opening of the schools this fall.
  This voucher amendment would further undermine General Becton's 
efforts just as he is making headway in repairing D.C. schools, 
increasing security and developing effective ways to improve the 
schools and help all students reach academic standards.
  In addition, the voucher system would impose yet another bureaucracy, 
another federally appointed board on the District of Columbia to use 
Federal funds to implement the voucher system. The nominations of six 
of the seven board members would be controlled by Republican leaders of 
Congress. Only one representative of the District of Columbia would 
serve on the corporation.
  Instead of supporting local efforts to revitalize the schools, the 
voucher proponents are attempting to make D.C. public schools a guinea 
pig for an ideological experiment in education that voters in the 
District of Columbia have soundly rejected and that voters across the 
country have soundly rejected, too. Our Republican colleagues have 
clearly been unable to generate any significant support for vouchers in 
their own States, and it is a travesty of responsible action for them 
to attempt to foist their discredited idea on the long-suffering people 
and long-suffering public schools of the District of Columbia. If 
vouchers are a bad idea for the public schools in 50 States, they are a 
bad idea for the public schools of the District of Columbia, too.
  Many of us in Congress favor D.C. home rule and many of us in 
Congress believe that the people of the District of Columbia should be 
entitled to have voting representation in the Senate and the House, 
like the people in every State. It is an embarrassment to our democracy 
that the most powerful democracy on Earth denies the most basic right 
of any democracy--the right to vote--to the citizens of the Nation's 
Capital.

  The District of Columbia is not a test tube for misguided Republican 
ideological experiments on education. Above all, the District of 
Columbia is not a slave plantation. Republicans in Congress should 
start treating the people of the District of Columbia with the respect 
that they deserve.
  General Becton, local leaders, and D.C. parents are working hard to 
improve all D.C. public schools for all children. Congress should give 
them its support, not undermine them.
  We have here, Mr. President, the examples of some of the activities 
that are taking place in the Walker Jones Elementary School in 
Northwest Washington working with the Laboratory for Student Success, 
using Community for Learning, a research-based reform model, and it is 
working. The concept is called whole school reform. With increased and 
more intensive teacher training, in proven methods and materials geared 
toward better student learning, student test scores have improved. 
After 6 months in the program, the school raised its ranking in the 
District on reading scores from 99th in 1996 to 36th in 1997. In math, 
the school climbed from 81st in the District to 18th. It is working. 
These kinds of investments are working in this particular school.
  The John Tyler Elementary School in Southeast Washington uses the 
Comer School Development Model Program to restructure school 
management, curriculum, and teacher training. Teachers focus on reading 
and math instruction as well as hands-on learning in science and math. 
All of the students in the Tyler School, of whom 95 percent come from 
low-income families, are benefiting from the reforms. Academic 
achievement is going up. It is improving.
  Spingarn High School in Northeast Washington has extended the day 
because they felt that school safety was a first priority. The school 
is a safe haven for students, and the academic standards are going up.
  The District of Columbia has created the so-called Saturday academies 
for students who read below grade level. The Saturday curriculum 
reinforces

[[Page S10187]]

the weekly instruction and benefits from a reduced student-teacher 
ratio, and the results show that it is working.
  These are examples of what is taking place in the District of 
Columbia, working for all students. They should be encouraged. They 
should be expanded. They should be given the resources to be able to 
implement those programs.
  Mr. President, $7 million would provide afterschool programs for 
every school in the District of Columbia. That would benefit all 
students, not just a very small group.
  Scarce education funds should be targeted to public schools. They do 
not have the luxury of closing their doors to students who pose 
challenges, such as children with disabilities, limited English-
proficient children, or homeless students. Vouchers will not help 
children who need the most help.
  Voucher proponents argue that vouchers increase choice for parents. 
But parental choice is a mirage. Private schools apply different rules 
than public schools. Public schools must accept all children. Private 
schools can decide whether to accept a child or not. The real choice 
goes to the schools, not the parents. The better the private school, 
the more parents and students are turned away.
  In fact, many private schools require children to take rigorous 
achievement tests, at the parents' expense, as a basic for admission to 
the private schools. Lengthy interviews and complex selection processes 
are often mandatory. Private schools impose many barriers to admission. 
Few parents can even get to the schoolhouse door to find out if it is 
open to their child. For the vast majority of families with children in 
public schools, the so-called school choice offered by the voucher 
scheme is a hollow choice.
  Public schools must take all children, and build a program to meet 
each of their needs. Private schools only take children who fit the 
guidelines of their existing programs. We should not use public tax 
dollars to support schools that choose some children, and reject 
others.
  There are also serious constitutional objections to the voucher 
scheme. The vast majority of private schools that charge tuition below 
$3,200 are religious schools. Providing vouchers to sectarian schools 
violates the establishment clause of the first amendment of the U.S. 
Constitution. In many States voucher schemes would violate the State 
constitution, too. Courts in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Vermont have all 
reached decisions this year upholding the ruling that the use of public 
funds to pay for vouchers for religious schools is unconstitutional.
  If voucher proponents genuinely wanted to help the children of the 
District of Columbia obtain a good education, they would use the $7 
million in this amendment to support reform efforts to improve the 
public schools. Money is not the only answer to school reform, but it 
is a principal part of the answer. Public schools in States across the 
country are starved for funds, and so are the D.C. public schools.
  We saw an example just this morning. The Ballou Senior High School 
here in the District was forced to close due to a leaky roof caused by 
the weekend rainstorms. Students were sent to Douglass Junior High 
School, one of the buildings closed by the District. Again, the 
students of the D.C. schools suffered because of poor facilities. Seven 
million dollars would begin the critical repairs to the 80 buildings 
that did not get new roofs this year, to make sure that this will not 
happen to other schools.
  We know what works in school reform. Steps are available with proven 
records of success to improve teaching and instruction, reduce crowded 
classrooms, and bring schools into the world of modern technology--let 
alone repairing crumbling schools facilities and making classrooms, 
corridors, and playgrounds safe for children trying their best to learn 
in conditions that no private schools would tolerate.
  Too often, with good reason, children in too many public schools in 
too many communities across the country feel left out and left behind. 
Vouchers will only make that problem worse. Three percent of the 
students would be helped by enabling them to attend private schools, 
while 97 percent of the students are left even farther behind.
  Supporting a few children at the expense of all the others is a 
serious mistake. We don't have to abandon the public schools in order 
to help. We should make investments that help all children in the D.C. 
schools to obtain a safer and better education. I hope my colleagues 
will reject this amendment.
  Again, we should not impose on the District of Columbia what voters 
in other States don't want. In the last year, voters in Colorado, 
Washington, and California have rejected the vouchers. In the past 10 
years, State legislatures in 16 States have voted this down. Even the 
Texas legislature rejected even the vouchers this year, and we should 
as well.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I note at the outset we should not 
impose on the children of the District of Columbia what Members of the 
U.S. Senate are not willing to do. We did a survey of Members of the 
U.S. Senate to find out how many sent their children to the District of 
Columbia public schools. Of the 100 Members of the U.S. Senate, we were 
able to get ahold of 95 offices. We have not found an office yet that 
sends their children to the District of Columbia public schools.
  Should we require students whose families do not have the income to 
be able to either move to other schools or to go to private schools to 
stay in this public school system? I submit we should not. It is not 
fair to the kids.
  Listen to the statistics. These are just the facts. No. 1, 78 percent 
of the fourth grade students are below basic reading achievement levels 
in the District of Columbia. I chaired this subcommittee. I have held 
numerous hearings on this. I have gone to the schools. These are the 
facts.
  No. 2, 11 percent of the students in the D.C. public schools have 
avoided going to school for safety reasons.
  Fact No. 3, 11 percent of the students in the D.C. public schools 
report being threatened or injured with a weapon during the past school 
year.
  Fact No. 4, this amendment provides low-income students and their 
parents a choice, a choice they currently do not have under the D.C. 
public school system. Right now, pupils in the District do not have a 
choice but to risk their lives and their potential for educational 
achievement by going to the D.C. public schools.
  Fact No. 5, General Becton, who heads the reform in the District of 
Columbia public schools, said, ``Give me to the year 2000. We will fix 
the schools up by the year 2000.'' And I am behind the General and the 
work he is trying to do to make these public schools better. But if you 
are a first grade student that means you are going to be in the first 
and second and third grade in these schools that have failed the kids. 
And they have failed the children. Some of them have worked, but 
overall they have failed the students. They have to learn to read and 
write and add and subtract during those 3 years. That time is too 
valuable to condemn those students to that type of situation.
  It is not fair to the kids. If they had the wherewithal, if they had 
the income, a number of them would move out to different schools in 
Maryland or Virginia or to private schools. They don't have the option 
to be able to do that. This is not fair to the kids, to condemn them to 
this system. All we are asking is for students below that certain level 
of poverty, that they be able to have the possibility of doing what 
most of the Members--in fact all we have been able to find, of the 95 
that we surveyed and got ahold of--all of the Members in the U.S. 
Senate do, and that is send their children to other schools because 
this system has failed. This system has failed the children, according 
to the District of Columbia control board itself. This system has 
failed the children. Let's not condemn that first grader, that second 
grader, that third grader, not to be able to read or write by not 
allowing this choice.
  One of my highest priorities as the chairman of the Senate 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructing, and 
the District of Columbia, is to make sure the children in the Nation's 
capital are receiving the quality education they deserve. The 
District's public schools, unfortunately, have failed too many 
students.

[[Page S10188]]

I'm pleased to join Senators Coats, Lieberman, and Landrieu in offering 
this amendment to empower students and their parents in the District 
with a choice in their education.
  I, along with the distinguished ranking member of my subcommittee, 
Senator Lieberman, have held hearings to explore options to improve 
public education in the District. I know there are public schools which 
are working and where students are thriving in their learning 
environment. I had the privilege to visit two schools in the District: 
Stuart-Hobson Middle School and Options Public Charter School. I was 
impressed by the success of their educational programs and how the 
students took pride in their education. The Options Public Charter 
School was especially interesting as an example for future charter 
schools in the District to follow. These schools, unfortunately, are 
exceptions in the District public school system.
  The overall facts about the District public schools speak for itself: 
78 percent of fourth grade students are below basic reading achievement 
levels; 11 percent of the D.C. public schools have avoided going to 
school for safety reasons; and 11 percent of the students report being 
threatened or injured with a weapon during the past year. We cannot 
continue to trap these students in an educational system that is 
failing them.
  This amendment provides low income students a choice they currently 
do not have under the D.C. public school system. Right now, pupils in 
the District do not have a choice but to risk their lives and their 
potential for educational achievement by going to the D.C. public 
schools. Right now, students in the District do not have a choice but 
to go to a D.C. public school knowing the glaring reality that the 
longer they remain in the D.C. public schools, the less likely they 
will succeed. The Coats-Lieberman-Brownback-Landrieu amendment would 
give low-income students and parents the choice to enroll their 
children in a safe environment with high quality education at a private 
school. Under this amendment, the parents and the students are 
empowered with a choice in their education. It is an immediate solution 
to an immediate crisis in the District.
  Gen. Julius Becton, chief executive officer and superintendent of the 
District of Columbia Public Schools, and the District of Columbia 
Emergency Transitional School Board of Trustees have said that they 
will make significant improvements by the year 2000, and I recognize 
and respect the work that lies ahead of them. But the year 2000 is 3 
school years away. In three school years, a child progresses through 
grades one through three in which they learn to read, write, add, 
subtract, and so forth. These 3 school years are too valuable to force 
these students to continue in the public school system that has not 
delivered.
  The focus of this amendment is on the low-income student in the D.C. 
public schools. By providing up to $3,200 in individual scholarships to 
low-income families who will choose the school for their children, this 
amendment would give these students the chance to make sure the next 
three school years do not go to waste while General Becton improves the 
D.C. public schools. Improving the chances for these children to get 
the education they need is one of the most fundamental elements to 
restore the Nation's capital into the shining city the United States 
deserves.
  Mr. President, I ask the Members to support the Coats amendment and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Massachusetts, 
thank you for leading this side.
  Mr. President, this amendment--and this is the reason why we are 
voting against cloture--this amendment would use $7 million of public 
taxpayer funding to pay tuition at private schools. We are in battle to 
balance the budget. I am proud to say we are making great progress. But 
I know that Americans agree that education is a priority and, while we 
cannot give every child a scholarship, while we cannot do everything we 
want to do, while we cannot fund, as we would like, Senator Carol 
Moseley-Braun's incredible initiative as we rebuild our crumbling 
schools--while we cannot do that, here we are diverting $7 million of 
taxpayer funds and giving them to private schools.
  Who are we helping in the District of Columbia? Who, under this idea, 
do we contend would be helped? Mr. President, 2,000 out of 78,000 
children; 3 percent. It is the 3 percent solution when we need a 100 
percent solution. You know, you could really debate whether 3 percent 
of the kids would be helped. Because I have read this proposal, and I 
have to tell you, if I were for vouchers I would have written it a 
little differently. Why do I say that? This allows schools to spring 
up, mom-and-pop-shop schools, untested, if they can show that they can 
draw 25 children. Untested schools will spring up to grab this new 
source of funding from Uncle Sam. Because, as we know, the good schools 
that are touted around here, No. 1, many of them are filled up; No. 2, 
most of them charge at least twice the tuition that these children will 
get. So we are, in essence, going to start a whole new cottage industry 
of people popping up with ``new schools,'' to grab this taxpayer money. 
To supposedly help 3 percent of the kids. I contend 3 percent of the 
kids will not be helped by going to some of those operations.
  So, I hope my colleagues will read this proposal because, if you read 
it, you learn a lot of interesting things. For example, a new board of 
directors is set up. This is a bureaucracy, folks --a new bureaucracy. 
The board of directors are going to be political appointees, political 
appointees. So here we have a lot of talk about, ``get government out 
of our lives,'' and who is going to decide this? Political appointees: 
The Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is going to recommend these 
appointees to the President. Guess what, buried in that bill, the 
people who sit on these boards can earn up to $5,000 a year in a 
stipend. That $5,000 is more than the tuition check for the child. So 
we are creating a little cushy new bureaucracy here, with political 
appointees, to help 3 percent of the kids, which I contend would not be 
helped.
  So, I feel Members ought to look at this. My State, California, has 
rejected vouchers twice. Let me tell you the reason. The reason is they 
want to help 100 percent of the kids. They are smart. They know the 
answer lies in better schools. That's why we backed charter schools, 
that's why we want national standards, to make sure that our children 
are living up to their potential. So these are the things that we want 
to do in California.
  Mr. President, we could take this $7 million and we could do a lot of 
repairs on some of these D.C. schools. Some of them need boilers, 
because it is freezing in those schools. We could set up an after-
school program. That is so important. We are doing it in Los Angles and 
Sacramento, so these kids have something to say ``Yes'' to after 
school. We could set up many of those after-school programs with this 
$7 million. By the way, just take the half-million off the top you are 
going to use for this new bureaucracy, you could fix a lot of schools. 
You could put after-school programs in. You could mentor a lot of 
children.
  So I want quality schools for every child in America. I think this is 
a surrender. This is a surrender. And even with it, if it went into 
place, in my view it would encourage these new little schools to pop 
up, untested, because somebody would get the idea: Oh, this is great. I 
can get $3,500 per child. I will just set up my own school. And 
convince this board of directors that is politically appointed that 
they ought to be allowed to continue.
  I hope we are going to reject this. I do not doubt for one moment 
that the people who put this forward are very sincere and caring about 
children. I just think it will have unintended consequences. I hope we 
will vote this down.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts and I yield the remainder of 
my time to him.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield just for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I believe I yielded my time back to the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the Senator 3 more minutes, if we need to.

[[Page S10189]]

  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Seven years ago, 53 percent of the D.C. teachers were 
not certified. Last year that number had dropped to 33 percent. In 
1997, all new teachers are going to be certified and existing teachers 
who are here must be certified by January, 1998, or risk dismissal. Is 
that the kind of reform that you are talking about, a comprehensive 
solution, rather than helping just a few children? Programs that 
enhance the training and bring teachers up to speed so they have world 
class standards and world class certification, to be able to work with 
all children? Is that the kind of thing that the Senator from 
California is talking about?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. I am talking about quality schools for 100 
percent of the children, and I think the chart behind the Senator from 
Massachusetts explains the situation:
  Restructure the whole school; foster world-class instruction; extend 
the school day; enhance family centered learning.
  I talked about after school. Senator Carol Moseley-Braun talks about 
fixing the crumbling schools. This is what we ought to be doing, not 
surrendering and giving these dollars to private institutions, some of 
them that are going to be totally untested, I say to my friend.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield further? Under General Becton's 
new initiatives, students in grade 3 and 8 have to have the basic 
reading skills before advancing to a higher grade. This requirement 
reflects the commitment of the District of Columbia to ensure all 
children master basic reading skills. That has been the new program.
  Do I understand that if we had $7 million to try to implement those 
kinds of programs to work with kids, particularly those that may have 
more difficulty working through and enhancing their academic 
achievement, we would see all of the students in that class moving 
along together in enhancing their reading capabilities, which is key to 
all learning in the future? Those are the kind of investments that the 
Senator thinks would make sense for all the students, I imagine?
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely, and testing. We support, you and I, this 
voluntary national testing. It is interesting, some of the people who 
are the strongest supporters of giving back to these private schools 
are fighting against testing. They don't want to have the children 
tested. Therefore, we will never know who is being left behind. The 
Senator is on target. We know what we have to do to make these kids 
whole. We know what we have to do to help 100 percent of the kids.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I reserve the remainder of our 
time.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let's begin by talking about testing. I 
have here a pie chart that talks about people who attend D.C. public 
schools. These are the cold realities of the situation: 52.9 percent of 
them drop out of D.C. public schools before they graduate. So, 
obviously, they don't have a chance of going to college.
  Of the less than half who graduate, 22.1 percent of all people who 
are in the system never take the SAT test that would allow them an 
opportunity, if they are successful, to attend a major college or 
university.
  Of those who take the test, half make below 796 on the test. That is 
below the minimum standard set by most major colleges or universities 
in this region of the country.
  So to begin with, roughly only one out of eight students has any 
chance in the world of attending a major college or university. That is 
the quality of the system that we see defended today by people who are 
willing to let children go to schools that don't teach, that don't 
deliver, that don't produce quality in order to defend teachers unions 
and vested interests.
  Let me show you the next chart. The next chart basically points out 
where we are in the District of Columbia as compared to what is 
required to actually be successful and go on to a college or 
university.
  The average student in the District of Columbia makes 790 on the SAT 
test. The average for the country as a whole is about 1050. To go to 
the University of Maryland, you have to average about 1170. To go to 
Penn State, you have to average about 1190. To go to the University of 
North Carolina, you have to score about 1230, and to go to the 
University of Virginia, you have to make about 1300.
  Talk about discriminating against children. You force working 
families in the District of Columbia to send their children and their 
money to schools that turn out children that make 790 on the SAT test, 
and you are discriminating against them before they ever have any 
opportunity to use their God-given talents to advance themselves and 
their families.

  Let me make note of the fact that the NCAA says that if you don't 
make 840 on the SAT test, you are not a real student and you are being 
exploited by playing football or basketball at a major college or 
university. The average SAT score in the District of Columbia is 789. 
That is clearly a case of failure.
  Is it a failure to commit money? The average school system in America 
spends $5,765 per student. The District of Columbia spends $10,180 per 
student, roughly twice the national average, and yet look at the final 
product. But not for children of D.C. teachers. They want a mandatory 
program for everybody except themselves.
  Nationwide, 12.1 percent of public schoolteachers on average send 
their kids to private schools. But in the District of Columbia, it is 
28.2 percent. So despite more money than any other school system in 
America--twice the national average, more than twice the number of 
teachers in the District of Columbia send their children to private 
schools as the national average. Yet the test scores continue to 
reflect failure, and this is not new.
  The failure of the D.C. schools to deliver in terms of hard 
achievement are well documented, and they have been in existence for a 
long time. Why not spend $7 million to give people a chance to compete? 
For God's sakes, this is something we ought to do. We ought to be 
ashamed of denying these children an opportunity to compete. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 6 minutes, or more, if the Senator from Illinois 
wants it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. To my 
colleague and friend from Texas, I raise the point that this is not 
just a matter of a mandatory system for everybody but themselves, 
referring to people in the District of Columbia, but, as I understand 
it, the State of Texas has rejected an attempt to put in vouchers. So 
this issue is one which is applied to the District but not to the State 
of the Senator from Texas. I think we ought to consider for a moment if 
it is not good for Texas, it is not good for anyone else in the 
country.
  I point out this argument about helping poor kids ought to be looked 
at very seriously. Are we really helping poor children, No. 1, and, No. 
2, does it help poor children to hold them out to be guinea pigs in an 
experiment that has not worked anywhere that it has been tried for 
which we have no information and in which, quite frankly, it represents 
a clear capitulation and a clear admission of failure, not just of 
failure, but of a lack of will to reform and revive the system of 
public education that we have in the District of Columbia?
  The fact of the matter is, the $7 million that is to be diverted from 
the District schools won't fix a single school, won't fund reform and 
won't support the children who are there. I think that we should be 
building up the schools, not tearing them down, not taking money or 
bleeding money away from a public school system that admittedly is 
troubled. We want to reform the public schools in the District, but 
they have started a reform effort and, much as the reform effort in my 
home State of Illinois, it has shown to have great success where there 
is energized and committed leadership. We can reform our schools if we 
will just believe that they can be reformed, if we will just invest in 
them.

[[Page S10190]]

  The fact is, again, with the $7 million we could make a real 
difference in the D.C. public schools. We could fully fund every after 
school program in the D.C. schools. We could buy 368 new boilers for 
the schools. We could rewire 65 of the schools that don't have the 
electrical wiring to accommodate computers and multimedia equipment. We 
could upgrade the plumbing in 102 schools with substandard facilities. 
We could buy 460,000 new books for the D.C. school libraries.

  Instead of engaging the $7 million to fix what we have, we are going 
to say, let's bleed this patient to death, let's spin off enough for 2 
percent of the schoolchildren and leave the others behind.
  Let me point out for a moment, and it has been mentioned in the 
debate already, that one of the schools in the District just today had 
to close because of a leaky roof. As you know, I have been speaking 
about the whole issue of school facilities for a while, and in the 
District of Columbia, we see, according to reports by the General 
Accounting Office and others, that 67 percent of the schools have 
crumbling roofs.
  If you know anything at all, you know if you have a leaky roof, you 
are likely to have walls that collapse and floorboards that curl and 
electrical wiring that can't be used. So having a leaky roof goes to 
the very heart of the environment for learning.
  Are we going to put the $7 million into fixing some of those 
crumbling roofs? Apparently not, according to this plan.
  Sixty-five percent of the schools in the District of Columbia have 
faulty plumbing, again, a situation where we have children who go to 
schools where the plumbing doesn't work. Yet, instead of saying we are 
going to fix the plumbing we are going to engage to support and build 
up and improve education for these kids, we are going to spin off some 
of them into another system, again, that has never been tried and 
created, and that we don't, frankly, know whether or not it is going to 
provide any benefit at all even to them.
  Forty-one percent of the schools don't have enough power outlets and 
electrical wiring to accommodate computers and multimedia equipment. 
Everybody knows in this generation of students, computers are what 
books were to my generation. The kids have to have computers, and that 
is one of the reasons people do want to have quality education because 
they want to make certain their youngsters can get on the information 
superhighway. You can't plug the computer in if you don't have 
electrical wiring in the wall.
  Yet, instead of putting $7 million into fixing the electrical wiring 
in the schools, we want to spend that money somewhere else.
  Sixty-six percent of the schools have inadequate heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning. Again, I don't know if people 
listening have spent a summer in the District of Columbia, but if you 
get here toward summertime, being in a room without air conditioning is 
close to being sentenced to purgatory. The children in the public 
schools would benefit if we were to make the kind of investment in 
them, as opposed to, again, bleeding the system as this proposal 
suggests.
  I think, Mr. President, though, that at the heart of this debate is 
really almost a sad kind of capitulation, a sad kind of a lack of will 
that says that education is just a matter of whether or not I got mine, 
get yours, go into the market, buy an education for this chit and if 
you don't get a chit and can't buy a better education, that is too bad 
for you. The whole notion of public education is that it creates a 
public good, that it is something that benefits all of us, and that 
public education becomes, if you will, the great center of meritocracy 
that defines what this country is all about.
  The ladder of opportunity is crafted in the classroom in America. 
What we are now saying is that some will get the opportunity and others 
will not. Assuming for a moment that this proposal were adopted--and I 
am going to do everything I can in opposition to it--but assuming it 
were adopted, of the 80,000 children in the District of Columbia, about 
2,000 of them would be served. That would leave then 78,000 children 
left behind, left behind with schools that have crumbling roofs, faulty 
plumbing, not enough electrical power, and inadequate heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning. That is what this proposal really 
represents.
  I had in my office two students who were interns briefly. They were 
actually high school students from the District of Columbia. The reason 
they were working in my office as recently as last week was because 
they couldn't go to school, and they couldn't go to school because the 
courts had closed their school down for bad facilities. The 
infrastructure was so bad in their schools that they had no place to go 
to get an education. So we took them in to give them an opportunity 
just to do something during the daytime.
  In the face of that failure, how we can suggest or how it can be 
suggested that bleeding that system even further instead of investing 
in it and giving it the support seems to me to be not only shortsighted 
but counterproductive. I think we can afford to waste no child. I think 
we should leave no child behind. To the extent that the combination of 
money and leadership, because it is not just money alone, it has to 
take an engaged population, if we engage to preserve, to revive and to 
reform these public schools, we can save them, and we can provide 
opportunity for all of our children.
  The idea is not to create a two- and three-tier system of education 
so some can get and others cannot, what we want to do is have quality 
education for every child, so whether that child is an orphan or that 
child has parents who don't understand the school system or don't speak 
the language, that child will not be left behind in that which we have 
relegated to the back burner, that which is left over after we have 
siphoned off the resources into a private system.
  I say let's not make the children of the District of Columbia guinea 
pigs in this ill-considered experiment.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HELMS. I am grateful to the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats] and 
the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] for their having 
introduced the pending amendment. They are to be commended for offering 
this proposal, which will improve the circumstances of many students 
who live in the District of Columbia, and who want to escape--and no 
other word really fits--escape the horrific conditions that exist in so 
many local public schools.
  I would say to my friends from Indiana and Connecticut that it takes 
a lot of courage to stand up against the public education 
establishment. They're a powerful bunch, the National Education 
Association crowd, and they're not afraid to use all of their muscle to 
oppose any effort to help parents find alternatives to failing public 
school systems.
  Those who have examined the appalling state of the D.C. public 
schools are fully aware that parents need an alternative to the status 
quo. On February 20 of this year, even the Washington Post reported the 
following dismaying statistics:
  Sixty-five percent of D.C. public school children tested below their 
grade levels for reading in the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills.
  Seventy-two percent of fourth-graders in the D.C. public schools 
tested below the ``basic proficiency'' level on the National Assessment 
of Education Progress test given to students every 2 years--this was 
the lowest score of any school system in the country.
  The dropout rate among D.C. public schools students is an astounding 
40 percent.
  Meanwhile, even those that graduate are unprepared. More than half of 
D.C. public school graduates who take the U.S. Armed Forces 
Qualification Test scored below 50 percent on the test--that's a 
failing grade, Mr. President. That might be the saddest statistic of 
all. These young people--who want to better their lives through 
association with our armed forces--cannot pass the vocational aptitude 
exam given to aspiring recruits because the D.C. public schools are not 
properly preparing them.
  So, Mr. President, the list goes on and on. The Heritage Foundation 
reports that 11 percentage of students in the D.C. public school system 
avoid school because they fear for their own safety. Isn't that sad, 
Mr. President? Children in our Nation's Capital are afraid to go to 
school.
  Then again, why wouldn't they be afraid? Sixteen percent of the 
students

[[Page S10191]]

in the D.C. public schools have at one time carried a weapon into their 
school. There are metal detectors at many if not all schools to prevent 
pistols, switchblade knives and narcotics from being smuggled into the 
classrooms.
  Nor is it just the students who are afraid. Almost one in five D.C. 
public school teachers report that verbal abuse from their students is 
a serious problem. With conditions like these, no wonder student 
performance is so low.
  Mr. President, again I congratulate Senator Coats and Senator 
Lieberman for offering this amendment, which opens up the alternative 
of private or parochial schools to parents whose family income is below 
185 percent of the poverty level. Their plan provides opportunity 
scholarships of up to $3,200 for parents who are fed up with the 
education--or, rather, the lack of education--provided by the D.C. 
public schools.
  Mr. President, there is a lot of misinformation swirling about 
concerning the high cost of private and parochial schools. When the 
words private school are mentioned, the image of elite and high-priced 
education often springs to mind. Nothing could be further from the 
truth.
  In fact, there is a vast and accessible network of private schools in 
the Washington area. My friend, the Senator from Indiana, informs me 
that there are 60 private schools in this area that cost less than 
$3,200 a year--the amount that families living below the poverty level 
can receive under the Coats/Lieberman amendment.
  Of these 60 schools, many are the remarkable Catholic schools that 
operate in the most poverty-stricken parts of Washington, DC. These 
schools are willing and able to provide true quality education to poor 
students; in fact the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington reports over 
1,000 spaces are available in its 16 Washington schools.
  They want to do the job, Mr. President. But first, Congress must 
stand up to the teachers' unions and the rest of the public school 
establishment that doesn't want to answer for the poor performance of 
public schools. The Coats/Lieberman amendment is a day of reckoning for 
the failure of the D.C. public school system--and an outstanding way 
for Congress to help school children receive the education they 
deserve.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Few issues are as divisive in education as this one--private school 
vouchers. There are very strong feelings on both sides of this issue. 
This is as it should be on issues affecting our children--strong 
feelings should be the norm. But I believe we should be concerned for 
all children, not just for a few.
  Our universal system of public education is one of the very 
cornerstones of our Nation, our democracy and our culture.
  In every community, public schools are where America comes together 
in its rich diversity. For generations, educating the rich, poor, 
black, white, first-generation Americans--be they Irish, English, 
Japanese or Mexican-Americans--and all Americans has been the charge 
and challenge of our public schools. It is clearly not the easiest 
task. But it's importance cannot be undervalued.
  These efforts are essential to our democracy which relies on an 
educated citizenry, to our communities which require understanding of 
diversity to function, and to our economy which thrives on highly 
educated and trained worker. Education--public education--is also the 
door to economic opportunity for all citizens individually.
  However, voucher proposals, like the one before us today, 
fundamentally undermine this ideal of public education.
  Supporters of these programs never argue they will serve all 
children. They simply argue it is a way for some children to get out of 
public schools. The amendment offered today would provide 2,000 
children, at most, with vouchers. But the D.C. public schools serve 
78,000 children and about 50,000 are low-income.
  I do not argue that our public schools do not face challenges--
violence, disinvestment and declining revenues plague some of our 
schools, just as they do many other community institutions.
  And our schools are not ignoring these problems--even with limited 
resources.
  Many are digging themselves out of these problems to offer real hope 
and opportunities to students. James Comer in Connecticut has led a 
revolution in public schools across the country by supporting parents 
and improving education through community involvement and reinvestment 
in the schools. Public magnet and charter schools are flourishing 
offering students innovative curriculum and new choices within the 
public school system. School safety programs, violence prevention 
curriculum and character education initiatives are making real gains in 
the struggle against violence in our schools and larger communities.
  And these reform efforts are beginning to show results. Our schools 
are getting better. Student achievement is up in math, science and 
reading. The reach of technology has spread to nearly all of our 
schools. The drop out rate continues to decline.
  We clearly have a ways to go before all our schools are models of 
excellence, but our goal must be to lend a hand in these critical 
efforts, not withdraw our support for the schools that educate 89 
percent of all students in America--public schools.
  And there is no question about it, private school vouchers will 
divert much needed dollars away from public schools. Our dollars are 
limited. We must focus them on improving opportunities for all children 
by improving the system that serves all children--the public schools.
  The $7 million this amendment would dedicate to D.C. vouchers are 
much better invested in the District of Columbia's public schools. Last 
week, Secretary Riley outlined how he would spend these funds on whole 
school improvement efforts and after-school programs. In addition, the 
infrastructure needs in D.C. schools remain quite severe--under the 
leadership of General Beckton, things are improving and these problems 
are being addressed. But, he estimates infrastructure needs alone top 
$2 billion.
  Proponents of private school choice argue that vouchers will open up 
new educational opportunities to low-income families and their 
children. In fact, vouchers offer private schools, not parents choice. 
The private schools will pick and choose students, as they do now. Few 
will choose to serve students with low test scores, with disabilities 
or with discipline problems. Vouchers, which will be between $2,400 and 
$3,200, will not come close to covering the cost of tuition at the vast 
majority of private schools in the District.
  In fact, the tuitions they will cover are at religious schools 
raising serious constitutional questions. No Federal court has ever 
upheld the use of vouchers for parochial school or religious education. 
To receive these funds, private religious schools would likely have to 
change the nature of their educational programs and eliminate any 
religious content. Many schools would be unwilling to do this; further 
limiting parent's ability to choose.
  There are also important accountability issues. Private institutions 
can fold in mid-year as nearly half a dozen have done in Milwaukee 
leaving taxpayers to pick up these pieces--only the pieces are 
children's lives and educations.
  This amendment also establishes a new bureaucracy within the District 
of Columbia to administer this program. There will be a board of 
citizens--only one of whom will be appointed by a D.C. official--to set 
up and oversee this program. For all our criticism of the D.C. 
government, its layer of bureaucracy, and lack of accountability 
structures, it is ironic that this amendment would set up yet another 
governing body. This is a long way from what this city needs.
  Mr. President, our public schools are not just about any one child; 
they are about all children and all of us. I do not have any children, 
but I pay property taxes and do so happily to support the education of 
the children I am counting on to be tomorrow's workers, thinkers, 
leaders, teachers and taxpayers.
  Our future is dependent on nurturing and developing the potential of 
every child to its fullest. Investing in our public schools is the best 
way to reach this goal.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this amendment.

[[Page S10192]]

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today we debate an amendment to the 
fiscal year 1998 District of Columbia Appropriations Act that would 
provide publicly-funded vouchers to low-income students so they can 
attend private and religious schools in the District and surrounding 
areas.
  The bill would authorize $7 million in the first year and a total of 
$45 million over 5 years. My colleagues have pointed out that this $7 
million would only serve 3 percent of the students in the Washington, 
DC school district, and that we should instead be looking at 
investments that will help 100 percent of the students.
  How much would $7 million buy for all the students in Washington, DC 
schools? How much real help--that would improve their ability to learn 
and succeed?
  How many teachers, reading assistants, school counselors, nurses, or 
volunteer coordinators would $7 million buy? How many computers, video 
systems, wireless communications systems, computer-assisted drafting 
systems, technology labs and other tools could $7 million buy? How many 
different ways could we help the parents--through parent involvement 
programs or family literacy services--to help their children succeed in 
school, with $7 million?
  My colleagues have in this debate asserted or intimated that defense 
of the public school is essentially defending the status quo, and being 
afraid of change. Well, when it comes to using public school funds to 
pay for students to attend private, sectarian schools, the status quo 
is actually set in the U.S. and many State constitutions.
  Our country has a rich history, since Roger Williams, Thomas 
Jefferson, and James Madison, that keeps a line of separation between 
our public tax dollars and the checking account at the local house of 
worship. These debates are further informed by public votes and public 
polls. As far as the American public is concerned, this particular 
ground has been gone over. The argument is moot; the law is clear.
  The experiences of the State of Washington also have bearing on this 
issue. I stand before you as a former school board member from a State 
where the law allows school boards to change anything not otherwise 
prohibited by law--to help students learn.
  Washington State allows wide flexibility in carrying out existing 
school law--and the Washington State Legislature has held many open 
public debates on laws that seem too stifling. In every school in my 
State, like those in many other States, there are teachers, students, 
parents, and community members thinking about how to make schools 
better, and taking actions to make them better.
  I want to be very clear about this--fear of change is not the 
obstacle here. My State also has a public school choice law that allows 
any student to attend school in any public school they choose. One 
thing we ve learned from this Washington State law is that the biggest 
frustration occurs when a school determines, as it is allowed, to say 
when the school is full, and closes the door to new students--who then 
must choose another school.
  The voters of Washington had a choice last fall, to allow private 
school vouchers. And they overwhelmingly rejected the idea at the 
polls. As you have heard, this has happened in other States around the 
country.
  Today, if you are worried about the educational crisis affecting any 
student in a public school anywhere in this country --you have two 
choices. You can play ``let's talk about vouchers,'' or you can go help 
a school. You can work at a think tank, or write a column for a 
newspaper, or become a Member of Congress.
  And you can spend a good portion of your career, countless hours of 
debate, and millions of dollars breaking your pick in the ground of the 
school voucher issue. You can impose your will on the only people in 
the contiguous United States without representative government. You can 
play games with a community that faces enough challenges already. You 
can strive to further denigrate the D.C. schools by luring away to 
private religious schools the 2,000 students who are most likely to 
want to become leaders in a revitalized public school.
  Or, you can do something productive. This $7 million could do some 
good. Your time devoted to a public school could help make needed 
changes. Your fund-raising on behalf of a public school foundation 
could make the difference for many students. Your tutoring or advocacy 
on behalf of a student or family could be the symbol that drives much 
more volunteer time and public awareness.
  It all comes down to one parent wanting to get the very best for his 
or her son or daughter, and how we can help that parent. We can dangle 
the possibility of a religious school voucher, or we can help the 
student and his or her school. For that one student, this $7 million 
voucher system could be far less meaningful than the help and attention 
of one caring adult.
  If any nationally-recognized voucher advocate went to that one 
student's school and offered to mediate a discussion, hold a fund-
raiser, or work with a family--that student could find real solutions 
in a real school. Or, we can continue to talk about vouchers and other 
things that will not, and in this case, should not happen.
  People have been talking about the crisis in schools for many years. 
The research shows we are doing better in many areas, but are not 
living up to the expectations of a new century. I fear that these kinds 
of discussions just create a crisis of a different kind--a crisis that 
saps our sense of volunteer spirit and voluntary support of public 
education. The students deserve better.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since 1992, when the Senate first voted on 
the issue of providing private school vouchers, I have consistently 
voted against spending Federal money to pay for tuition at private 
schools. I did so again today. But, I rise to let my colleagues know 
that I am reconsidering my position based on the changed circumstances 
in American education. I want to give everyone fair notice that in the 
future, I may vote to allow such a limited experiment.
  I realize that whenever elected officials change their position on an 
issue, they are subject to accusations of flip-flopping or being 
inconsistent or trying to have it both ways. It is for that reason that 
I want to explain my thinking on this matter today.
  Unlike some opponents of vouchers, I have never categorically opposed 
the idea of public money being used under any circumstances for private 
school education. Rather--and I think I have been forthright about this 
from the very beginning--my concerns have been very specific. First, I 
have questions about whether a private school voucher system, when it 
involves private religious schools, is constitutional. And, second, I 
have deep reservations about taking money away from underfunded public 
schools.
  But, Mr. President, I do not believe that simply because I have 
always voted a particular way on a particular issue that I should be 
locked in forever to that position. Circumstances change. Thinking 
changes. And, I have been giving this issue a lot of thought.
  I have come to the belief that the constitutional issues involved 
here are not as clear cut as opponents have argued. While lower courts 
have ruled that vouchers used in private religious schools violate the 
first amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion, the 
Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the question.
  In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that State tuition tax credits 
for private religious school tuition are perfectly constitutional, and 
the Supreme Court has ruled that Pell grants--vouchers for college 
students--can be used in private religious colleges without violating 
the Constitution. Granted, Mr. President, the issues that the Court has 
adjudicated are not exactly parallel to the issue of private school 
vouchers for elementary and secondary school students. But, the point 
is, it is an open question. Even some liberal constitutional scholars 
have noted that vouchers to parents and children may be constitutional. 
And, as long as it remains an open question, I do not think I can 
dismiss the issue of vouchers solely on constitutional grounds.
  With regard to my second concern--that private school vouchers may 
drain funds away from the public schools--I now think that the issue is 
more complex. The real issue is not whether money is drained from 
public schools, but what effect vouchers would have on public schools 
and the quality of education those students receive. And, yes, I do 
believe there is a difference. Even

[[Page S10193]]

if vouchers were to take money away from the public schools--and I 
should point out that not all voucher proposals do--that does not in 
and of itself mean that public schools will be harmed.
  When you have an area of the country--and most often here we are 
talking about inner cities--where the public schools are abysmal or 
dysfunctional or not working and where most of the children have no way 
out, it is legitimate to ask what would happen to the public schools 
with increased competition from private schools and what would happen 
to the quality of education for the children who live there.
  Most of the opponents of private school vouchers argue that with more 
kids attending private schools, the support for public education will 
be drained. To date, that assertion has largely gone unchallenged. I am 
not sure it should any more. Is it not possible that giving poor kids a 
way out will force the public schools to improve and result in more 
people coming back?
  Make no mistake about it. Public education must be our primary focus. 
And, in considering voting for vouchers in the future, I am not 
subscribing to the philosophy of many voucher supporters who argue that 
there should be no Federal role in education or that the Federal 
Government should not in any way help States fund public education or 
that we should decrease our commitment to public education. On the 
contrary, I think we should increase that commitment. But, for those 
kids who are presently caught in a failed public school, we must start 
asking--only asking--if public education is still the only answer.
  I do not know the answer to that or any of the other questions I have 
raised today. But, I believe the questions need to be asked. And, it 
may be that the only way that we will find out the answers is to create 
a limited private school voucher demonstration project.
  I say ``may,'' Mr. President, because I do not know. And, that really 
is part of the point here. I will continue to ask these questions, 
listen to both sides of the debate, and ponder the answers. In so 
doing, however, I want everyone to understand that I may conclude in 
the end that the only true way to answer the questions is to try 
vouchers--in a limited fashion for those who need the most help.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the concerns my colleagues 
have expressed for the future of the children of Washington, DC. The 
conditions in many of the schools are truly deplorable, and the 
performance levels of the children show that there are many problems 
that need to be addressed. I do not, however, share their faith in 
vouchers as a solution.
  Although the sponsors have worked to address some of the problems 
with past voucher proposals, I see four serious flaws with this 
particular approach.
  First, this proposal ignores 97 percent of all children in the D.C. 
schools. There are 78,000 children in the D.C. public schools. 
Approximately 50,000 of them are from low-income families. Under this 
proposal, only 2,000 children--less than 3 percent of all children in 
D.C. schools--would receive vouchers.
  If helping children leave the public school system and go to private 
school really is the only way to get a good education--and I will 
outline in a moment why I do not believe it is--what message would we 
be sending to the children who would not get vouchers? Are we telling 
them that they're not important? Are we telling them that we're giving 
up on them?
  I think we ought to tell them that they're all important, that we 
cannot afford to leave one of them behind. We need solutions that help 
all children, not just a few who happen to be lucky enough to win a 
lottery.
  The second flaw I see with this proposal is that there is little 
proof that vouchers work. I certainly do not believe, as some of the 
proponents have claimed, that those who are left behind are helped in 
any way by the divisions that will be created within communities or by 
the loss of active parents to the public school system. But there is 
also little evidence that vouchers have helped the children who receive 
them in Milwaukee and Cleveland. The research is contradictory, but 
careful examination of the data seems to show that improvements in 
children's academic achievement has almost everything to do with family 
background, and almost nothing to do with vouchers.
  A third problem with this proposal is that, in the end, it's not 
parents who choose, it's private schools. My colleagues say they want 
to give parents more choices, and I am sympathetic to that argument. 
But, who is really doing the choosing? The answer: private schools will 
choose. As the article in this morning's Washington Post points out, 
very few of the secular private schools in this area charge a tuition 
at or below the level of the vouchers and many of these do not have 
places for additional students. The better the school, the more likely 
they are to turn students away.
  The proposal does not require private schools to accept children with 
disabilities or children with limited English proficiency. So, parents 
of these children are likely to find they have few choices available to 
them.
  Finding schools to accept children has been a problem in cities with 
voucher programs. In Cleveland, for example, nearly half of the public 
school students who received vouchers could not find a private school 
that would accept them. No choice was available for those students or 
their parents.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would point out that the public is opposed 
to vouchers. All parents want their children to be able to go to the 
best schools possible. But, when people understand how voucher programs 
work, they reject them. District voters rejected vouchers by an 8-to-1 
margin in 1981. More recent voucher initiatives in California, Oregon 
and Washington State were rejected by more than 2-to-1.
  Who does support vouchers? Among the biggest proponents are people 
who want to dismantle public schools, especially the radical religious 
right. In his book, America Can Be Saved, Jerry Falwell writes:

       One day, I hope in the next 10 years, I trust that we will 
     have more Christian day schools than there are public 
     schools. I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early 
     days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The 
     churches will have taken them over again and Christians will 
     be running them. What a happy day that will be!

  Mr. President, make no mistake about this. I support religious 
schools. I am a product of a Catholic school education. My parents had 
that choice, and I believe every parent should have that choice. But, I 
do not believe taxpayers should be forced to subsidize that choice. Our 
forefathers wisely understood that there should be a constitutional 
separation between church and state.
  There are other ways to expand parents' choices without violating the 
Constitution. We should increase parents' ability to choose which 
public schools their children attend within a district, among districts 
and even statewide. We should increase the number of magnet and theme 
schools within the public school system such as math and science 
academies that have been developed in some communities. We should 
establish more charter public schools, where motivated administrators 
and teachers work with innovative programs in exchange for more 
flexibility.
  Mr. President, it is pessimistic and callous to settle for helping 
less than 3 children in 100. We can do better. We know what works in 
education. We know that children need good teachers, high standards and 
reliable measurements to tell us whether they are achieving those 
standards, safe classrooms, and the active involvement of parents in 
the schools.
  There are public schools all across the country doing an outstanding 
job of educating children. They are laboratories of reform and 
excellence. We ought to support these schools and help other public 
schools reach their level, not give up on the principle of providing a 
good public education to all children.
  Sharing information about local school reforms that work, 
incidentally, is one of the functions performed by the Department of 
Education--which many voucher supporters would abolish.
  The American people are not willing to abandon public schools. Polls 
show that 71 percent of Americans believe we should revitalize public 
schools, not

[[Page S10194]]

abandon them. They believe we should educate all children, not just a 
few. When Americans have had the chance to vote for vouchers, they have 
voted against them overwhelmingly.
  In summary, this voucher amendment would: ignore the needs of 97 
percent of D.C. school children; make D.C. children guinea pigs for 
unproven theory; give choice to private schools, not parents; and drain 
needed energy and resources away from efforts to revitalize our public 
schools.
  There are better ways to improve our students' academic performance. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and work with me to enact 
real and meaningful strategies that help all of our children, not just 
a few.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time allotted to the Senator from 
Massachusetts has expired.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I yield myself 6 minutes, and my understanding is that 
will reserve roughly 10 minutes for the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There would be 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, it is interesting that in this debate not 
one person who is opposed to the scholarship program for D.C. students 
has come down here and addressed the fundamental issue of this debate. 
The fundamental issue is, will we give poverty-stricken minority 
children the opportunity to escape a failed educational system so that 
they, too, can participate in the American dream?
  We have talked about plumbing, air conditioning, crumbling schools, 
and we have heard if you can't give it for 100, you can't give it for 
any. What kind of argument is that? In other words, if you can't 
totally reform the system all at once for everyone, you condemn another 
whole generation in the District of Columbia--and in Chicago and other 
cities around this country--to failure and the inability to gain skills 
to become gainfully employed or to have the opportunity to go on to 
further education.
  Now, this argument about bleeding the system--if I could have the 
attention of the Senator from Illinois and the delegate from the 
District of Columbia, who is on the floor--bleeding the system. The 
D.C. school system gets $672 million a year, and you are saying that if 
you added $7 million, the system would be fixed?
  The General Accounting Office said that 25 percent of the maintenance 
budget never leaves the maintenance facilities office. It doesn't go to 
fix plumbing. The system is broken. We are taking $7 million, not out 
of the $672 million, not one penny of this is coming out of the current 
budget for D.C. schools. The $7 million is coming out of money set 
aside to reduce the general deficit. That was added on to the 
President's budget.
  Bleeding the system, fixing the ventilating, while kids can't even 
achieve the test score to go on to higher education, kids can't get out 
of a school--your own statistics show why parents want to leave. If 67 
percent of the schools have crumbling roofs and 65 percent have faulty 
plumbing and 66 percent have inadequate heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning and more than 50 percent goes to maintenance and 
administration and less than 50 percent of the $672 million goes to 
educating students, what is wrong with that system? There is something 
desperately wrong with the system.
  This program is designed to at least give 2,000 kids a chance. We 
talk about the 100-percent solution. Well, it is like if you can't give 
100 percent of the kids an opportunity within a failed system, then 
let's not give any kids an opportunity, let's condemn all of them.
  Now, the District of Columbia system needs help desperately. Even the 
Washington Post, not a supporter of school vouchers, has said give it a 
chance. At least try it, to see if maybe it spurs the system on, the 
D.C. public schools system, to a little bit better performance. If it 
doesn't work--we have a test built in here--if it doesn't work, we will 
try something else. But let's do something to help these kids. Let's do 
a small, little piece.

  Now, the Senator from California talks about bureaucracy. 
``Bureaucracy'' is another word for the D.C. public school system. More 
than 50 percent of the money, $672 million, doesn't even go to the 
classroom. Yet in this bill we have a cap of 7.5 percent on 
administration. We will match our administration with the D.C. 
administration any time, anywhere.
  Senator Kennedy said, who wants it? Nobody wants it in the District 
of Columbia. Here are 2,000 parents that want it that have signed this 
petition. I have a list of 100 ministers, D.C. ministers, almost all 
minority ministers, who said, we plead with you, give our kids a chance 
to get an education. They want it.
  There was a recent poll taken in the District of Columbia, and 64 
percent of D.C. residents indicated if they had the funds, they would 
get their kids out of the public school system; 40 percent drop out--
the Senator had a chart saying 50; say it's 40 or 50 percent, 
whatever--they don't even graduate from the system.
  The constitutional argument--vouchers are good enough for day care. I 
think the Senator supported that. Vouchers are good enough for Head 
Start. I think the Senator supported that. Vouchers are good enough for 
the GI bill and good enough for kids to go to Loyola in your State. 
That is a religious school. If they are good enough for people over 17 
and they are good enough for kids under 5, why aren't they good enough 
for kids between 5 and 17?
  Does the Senator want to respond?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. I would be delighted. I am very happy to respond 
to that.
  I think the issue, and the point I have just made, if the Senator is 
prepared to support an effort to address this as well, to address 
fixing up the crumbling schools in the District of Columbia so those 98 
percent of the children who will be left behind----
  Mr. COATS. I will be glad to respond. This Senator would be happy to 
support any effort to improve public schools, but I don't put plumbing 
ahead of education. I think the first thing we ought to do--and I don't 
know why the Senator doesn't support it--we first ought to help kids 
get educated, and at the same time maybe we can do that.
  If we don't fix the schools, we will not fix the education--that is 
upside down.
  One last thing. It was stated on this floor that few parents can get 
to the schoolhouse door. Well, there are a lot of poor kids who have no 
opportunities in life that can't get through the schoolhouse door 
because Members of Congress are standing at the schoolhouse door 
saying, ``Nope, you are not allowed in the school. You don't have the 
money, you can't get in.''
  I am a product of public schools. My kids are a product of public 
schools. I support public schools. But I don't support public schools 
that don't give education. I want to do something to help that public 
education.
  I yield the remaining time existing to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 8 minutes 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleague from Indiana.
  Let me pick up on what was said by Senator Coats, citing that this 
amendment is bleeding the system. Good God, the system is bleeding. It 
is not this amendment that is bleeding it. What is bleeding it is the 
failure of the system, and the blood that is being lost are the hopes 
and dreams of thousands of parents and children trapped in the school 
system who know it is a failure for them, who know it is not working 
for them.
  I appeal to my colleagues, particularly my Democratic colleagues, 
please look at the facts, cut through the rhetoric. I know there is 
strong pressure from interest groups representing the establishment, 
the education status quo. I know that my colleagues on the Democratic 
side are great believers in the public school system. But remember 
those words that I think were spoken by John Gardner, that too often 
debates are between those who are unloving critics and uncritical 
lovers. We all love the public school system, but open our eyes, look 
what is happening here.
  Senator Kennedy earlier in charting progress in the school system in 
the District of Columbia said in the last period of time the number of 
uncertified teachers went from more than 50 to 33 percent. Is that a 
sign of progress? Yes, it is progress. That is why Senator Brownback 
and I are working with Delegate Norton and others to bring more money 
to the District and support General Becton.

[[Page S10195]]

  But think about the reality. How many Members of this Senate would 
send their children to a school system in which one-third of the 
teachers were uncertified, unless they were forced to send them there 
because they didn't have the money to get them out.
  The Senator from California earlier said, gee, let's take this money, 
and my colleague and friend from Illinois added, let's put it on top, 
give it to all the kids, instead of just benefiting this relatively 
small group of 2,000.
  The Washington Post said a while ago in an editorial that the D.C. 
school system is a well-financed failure. So choice here is whether you 
will put $7 million on top of the more than $600 million we put into 
the system and better finance the failure instead of giving that money 
and focusing it on 2,000 kids and thereby giving them the opportunity 
for a better education and a better life.
  The D.C. school system already spends $7,655 a year, more than $1,500 
greater than the national average spent, per student in schools, more 
than $1,000 greater than that spent in the school districts in the 
neighboring counties of Maryland and Virginia.
  The debate is not about whether you are for the public schools. 
Senator Brownback as the chairman and I as the ranking Democrat have 
worked very hard with General Becton. Progress is being made. This is a 
system in which buildings are still deteriorating, are deteriorated, 
kids are afraid to go to schools, teachers are afraid to come and 
teach. Half the children are dropping out. The longer they stay in the 
school system, the worse they do compared to national averages on the 
standardized tests.
  We are saying here on this amendment, while we are all working with 
General Becton to improve this school system, let's recognize that this 
is a building on fire and let's get some kids out of those parts of the 
building on fire to give them a chance to better themselves.
  This is not a choice between public schools and private, parochial 
schools. That is a false choice. You can support this amendment and 
support the public schools in the District. The true choice here is 
between preserving the status quo at all costs, which is slamming a 
door in the face of the parents and children who want to do better, and 
doing what is necessary to put those children first. In other words, 
asking whether the status quo of the public education orthodoxy, which 
is letting down so many children, is so important that we are willing 
to sacrifice the hopes and aspirations of thousands of children for the 
sake of a process, not for the sake of the children.
  What is the interest of government in education? Not to protect a 
particular form but to educate our children. That is what this 
amendment is about. It is not a panacea. We have a lot more work to do. 
There is a recent independent study of the scholarship program similar 
to this one in Cleveland, and they found it helped produce enormous 
academic gains in 1 year. The same is true in Milwaukee.
  Also, it will have an effect on this school system in the District, 
as competition does, to get them to improve what they are doing. 
Support for choice is growing widely. In a poll, the Joint Center for 
Political and Economic Studies found support for school vouchers is 
surprisingly strong. They concluded it has substantially increased in 
the last year. A majority of African-Americans, 57.3 percent, and 
Hispanics, 65.4 percent, supported school vouchers.
  Mr. President, I want to make a direct appeal to my Democratic 
colleagues: I don't know why there is only a handful of us who are 
Democratic Members of this Senate supporting this proposal. This party 
of ours has been at its best when we have been for opportunity, when we 
have been for helping people up the ladder of American life--not to 
give a handout, but to give people a little help, to help them better 
themselves. That is what this is about. This is not about protecting a 
status quo, protecting education. Let's focus on human opportunity and 
the waste of human talent.
  In my opinion, voting against this measure, I say with respect, is 
about the equivalent of voting against Pell grants or the GI bill or 
child care programs or any of the host of other programs that 
Democrats, majority strong, proudly I say, have supported this year and 
over history.
  I think we have just become either uncritical lovers of the school 
system, the public school system, forgetting our primary education to 
the children who are there, or are being convinced by those who have a 
vested interest in the status quo that this is somehow, though on its 
face a good idea, the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. This is a 
lifeline for 2,000 children who are trapped in a school system where 
none of us would let our kids be. I don't mean all of it, but in many 
cases in this school system many of the schools we simply would not let 
our kids attend. We see it in the wealthiest section of this city. 
Choice supporters see that 65 percent of the families living in ward 3, 
the wealthiest in this city, send their children to private 
schools. Those ministers and children who came to see us from the 
poorest sections of this city asked us: Is it fair given this 
indictment of the District of Columbia public schools by the wealthier 
families and the wealthier neighborhoods for the Congress to force the 
poor and disenfranchised to attend schools that we would not ourselves?

  I appeal to my colleagues. Break out, break free, and let the kids--
2,000 of them now trapped in this school system--have the freedom that 
our Constitution provides them, the opportunity that we try to give 
them, and a future that is their birthright as Americans.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment being expired, under 
the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the 
Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     Coats amendment numbered 1249 to S. 1156:
         Trent Lott, Dan Coats, Richard Shelby, Mitch McConnell, 
           Connie Mack, Lauch Faircloth, James Inhofe, Alfonse 
           D'Amato, Rod Grams, John Warner, Pat Roberts, Chuck 
           Hagel, Ted Stevens, John McCain, Susan Collins, and Sam 
           Brownback.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 1249, as modified, to S. 1156, the 
District of Columbia appropriations bill, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rules. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 260 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Leahy
       

[[Page S10196]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 58 and the nays are 
41.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Indiana is 
the pending business.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment 
be set aside.
  Mr. COATS. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Unanimous consent agreement--House Joint Resolution 94

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after consultation with the minority leader, 
I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur on passage of House Joint 
Resolution 94, the continuing resolution, at 2:15 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MACK. 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. MACK. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Coats amendment.
  Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent the Coats amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1253, as modified

  Mr. MACK. Am I correct that the pending business before the Senate 
now is amendment 1253?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I have a modification to send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike all after the word ``section'' and insert the 
     following:

       . IMMIGRATION REFORM TRANSITION ACT OF 1997.

       (a) In General.--Section 240A, subsection (e), of the 
     Immigration and Nationality act is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``this section'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``section 240A(b)(1)'';
       (2) by striking ``, nor suspend the deportation and adjust 
     the status under section 244(a) (as in effect before the 
     enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration 
     Responsibility Act of 1996),''; and
       (3) by striking the last sentence in the subsection and 
     inserting in lieu thereof: ``The previous sentence shall 
     apply only to removal cases commenced on or after April 1, 
     1997, including cases where the Attorney General exercises 
     authority pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of section 309(c) 
     of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-208, Division C, 110 
     Stat. 3009).''.
       (b) Repealers.--Section 309, subsection (c), of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (P.L. 104-208, Division, C, 110 Stat. 3009) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (7).
       (c) Special Rule.--Section 240A of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act is amended--
       (1) In subsection (b), paragraph (3), by striking ``(1) or 
     (2)'' in the first and third sentences of that paragraph and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``(1), (2), or (3)'', and by 
     striking the second sentence of that paragraph;
       (2) In subsection (b), by redesignating paragraph (3) as 
     paragraph (4);
       (3) In subsection (d), paragraph (1), by striking ``this 
     section.'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsections (a), 
     (b)(1), and (b)(2).'';
       (4) in subsection (b), by adding after paragraph (2) the 
     following new paragraph--
       ``(3) Special rule for certain aliens covered by the 
     settlement agreement in American Baptist Churches et al. v. 
     Thornburgh (ABC), 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991).--
       ``(A) The Attorney General may, in his or her discretion, 
     cancel removal and adjust the status from such cancellation 
     in the case of an alien who is removable from the United 
     States if the alien demonstrates that--
       ``(i) the alien has not been convicted of an offense under 
     section 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), or 237(a)(3) and--
       ``(I) was not apprehended after December 19, 1990, at the 
     time of entry, and is either--
       ``(aa) a Salvadoran national who first entered the United 
     States on or before September 19, 1990, and who registered 
     for benefits pursuant to the ABC settlement agreement on or 
     before October 31, 1991, or applied for Temporary Protected 
     Status on or before October 31, 1991; or
       ``(bb) a Guatemalan national who first entered the United 
     States on or before October 1, 1990, and who registered for 
     benefits pursuant to the ABC settlement agreement by December 
     31, 1991; or
       ``(cc) the spouse or unmarried son or daughter of an alien 
     described in (aa) of this subclause and granted relief under 
     this paragraph, provided that the spouse, son or daughter 
     entered the United States on or before September 19, 1990, or 
     the spouse or unmarried son or daughter of a alien described 
     in (bb) of this subclause and granted relief under this 
     paragraph, provided that the spouse, son or daughter entered 
     the United states on or before October 1, 1990; or
       ``(II) is an alien who--
       (aa) is a Nicaraguan, Guatemalan, or Salvadoran who filed 
     an application for asylum with the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service before April 1, 1990, and the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service had not granted, 
     denied, or referred that application as of April 1, 1997; or
       (bb) is the spouse or unmarried son or daughter of an alien 
     described in (aa) of this subclause and granted relief under 
     this paragraph, provided that the spouse, son, or daughter 
     entered the United States on or before April 1, 1990; and--
       ``(ii) the alien is not described in paragraph (4) of 
     section 237(a), paragraph (3) of section 212(a) of the Act, 
     or section 241(b)(3)(i); and--
       ``(iii) the alien is removable under any law of the United 
     States, has been physically present in the United States for 
     a continuous period of not less than seven years immediately 
     preceding the date of such application, and proves that 
     during all of such period he was and is a person of good 
     moral character, and is a person whose removal would, in the 
     opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship 
     to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a 
     citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence.
       ``(B) Subsection (d) of this section shall not apply to 
     determinations under this paragraph, and an alien shall not 
     be considered to have failed to maintain continuous physical 
     presence in the United States under clause (A)(iii) of this 
     paragraph if the alien demonstrates that the absence from the 
     United States was brief, casual, and innocent, and did not 
     meaningfully interrupt the continuous physical presence.
       ``(C) The determination by the Attorney General whether an 
     alien meets the requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of 
     this paragraph is final and shall not be subject to review by 
     any court. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall be 
     construed as limiting the application of subparagraph (B) of 
     section 242(a)(2) to other eligibility determinations 
     pertaining to discretionary relief under this Act.''.
       (d) Effective Date of Subtitle (c).--The amendments made by 
     subtitle (c) shall be effective as if included in Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (P.L. 104-208, Division C, 110 Stat. 3009).
       (e) Appeal Process.--Any alien who has become eligible for 
     suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal as a 
     result of the amendments made by subsections (b) and (c) may, 
     notwithstanding any other limitations on motions to reopen 
     imposed by the Immigration and Nationality Act or by 
     regulation file one motion to reopen to apply for suspension 
     of deportation or cancellation of removal. The Attorney 
     General shall designate a specific time period in which all 
     such motions to reopen must be filed. The period must begin 
     no later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act and shall extend for a period of 180 days.
       (f) Effective Date of Section.--This section shall take 
     effect one day after enactment of this Act.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed of 
Rhode Island be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered simply 
clarifies the implementation of last year's immigration legislation in 
one specific area, the suspension of deportation. Last year's bill 
imposed stricter standards to obtain suspension of deportation. While 
this is fine for future applicants, it is unfair to impose new, harsher 
standards on cases which were already in the pipeline at the time of 
passage.
  This amendment does two specific things: first of all, it clarifies 
that certain Central American immigrants who

[[Page S10197]]

were in the administrative pipeline for suspension of deportation must 
continue to meet the standards that applied before the immigration 
reform law took effect. Second, the annual cap on suspensions of 
deportation would only apply to cases commenced after April 1, 1997.
  Without those two changes, we will be changing the rules midstream 
for a group of people who were attempting to comply with the guidelines 
for regularizing their immigration status. We encouraged them to come 
forward and play by the rules and we cannot go back on our word now.
  As a way of background, let me lay out some information for the 
Senate. Starting in the mid-1980's, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and 
Guatemalans fleeing the civil wars in their home countries started 
coming to the United States. Many of them made asylum claims, many of 
which were improperly denied as the U.S. Government acknowledged by 
ordering them readjudicated. In the case of Nicaraguans, this was done 
through the Nicaraguan review program established by Ronald Reagan. And 
in the case of Salvadorans and Guatemalans this was done through 
settlement of the ABC class lawsuit agreed to by the Bush 
administration.
  A huge backlog of asylum claims, however, then prevented their cases 
from being reheard for many years. Meanwhile, various temporary 
statuses allowed the members of this group to avoid deportation. In 
addition, they received authorization to work legally in the United 
States. During that time many members of that group established strong 
roots in this country.
  Under immigration law, there has long been available a procedure 
called ``suspension of deportation'' for an individual found to be of 
good character and who has been here for 7 years to adjust to legal 
status if deporting that individual would cause ``extreme hardship'' to 
the person or his or her immediate legal present relative. This 
requires a case-by-case adjudication that the person being granted this 
benefit meets the legal standard. Because of the asylum backlog and 
because conditions in the individual's home country had changed since 
the filing of their original asylum claims, the Department of Justice 
under President Clinton encouraged these central Americans to seek 
suspension of deportation rather than continuing to press their asylum 
claims or file a new lawsuit.
  Again, the point that I am trying to make here in laying out this 
history is that each step along the way this group of individuals has 
complied with the rules that existed at the time. In fact, we went to 
the extent that we encouraged these people to file for suspension of 
deportation, and it would just be fundamentally unfair at this point if 
we were to change the rules on these people who in fact have been 
trying to live by the rules every day that they have been here.

  Several other points. The reason why we believe this is important is 
because we believe that this in essence will deny these people the 
right to due process under laws with respect to suspension of 
deportation.
  I want to emphasize to my colleagues that this is not amnesty, and 
there is nothing automatic here. Let us assume for a moment that this 
amendment were to pass. We are not guaranteeing anybody anything other 
than the fact that they will have to comply with the rules as they 
existed at the time they came into the process of suspension of 
deportation.
  Again, I want to emphasize to my colleagues that this is not amnesty. 
Every person affected by my amendment is merely being given a chance 
for due process, to have their case heard. They must still meet the 
criteria to be granted suspension of deportation. In addition, my 
amendment is focused only upon an identifiable group. There are those 
who want to create the impression that if this amendment passes 
literally millions of people, millions of illegal immigrants will use 
this as a loophole to remain in the country. This is an extremely 
identifiable group. And, again, working with the INS, we have concluded 
that there are probably in the neighborhood of 316,000 individuals that 
would be included in the group, and of that 316,000 it is likely that 
150,000 will receive suspension of deportation.
  Again, I make the point that we ought to pass this amendment from the 
perspective of fairness. We should not change the rules midstream for 
this group of people. It is unfair and, I would make the claim, un-
American.
  On a personal note, from time to time, I have been asked why I became 
involved in this issue, and I will tell you that one of the memories 
that comes back to me is a trip to Nicaragua back in the 1980's where I 
went to a contra camp, and this was at a particular period of time 
where the concern was whether the United States was going to continue 
to provide assistance to those fighting for freedom in Nicaragua. And 
since they did not have the commitment to those financial resources, 
thousands of these freedom fighters came back into the camps in 
northern Nicaragua. I visited them. It was quite a scene--I must say, 
too, a very emotional scene.
  As the helicopter landed, off to the side of the camp two lines were 
formed, in essence two lines of men in fatigues at attention. As we 
walked through this group of individuals, where roughly 7,000 to 8,000 
freedom fighters were standing at attention, three men, three of the 
soldiers, with guitars played the Nicaraguan national anthem. It was a 
tremendously emotional period. In essence I said to them that we will 
not abandon you, that we will continue to support you in your fight for 
freedom.

  I would make the case that fighting for freedom is not just providing 
resources to those engaged in battle, or fighting for freedom is not 
simply standing firm in the U.S. Senate for a strong national defense. 
But standing firm for the protection of individual rights is, in fact, 
standing up for freedom. And I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  We have encouraged those people over years, not only in their fight 
for freedom, but afterward, telling them that if they played by the 
rules they could stay in this country.
  Mr. President, again, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment. It is the right thing to do. It is a fair thing to do. And 
it would be in the best interests of our country to continue to stand 
up for freedom for this group of people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am very proud to support my friend and 
colleague, Senator Mack, in our efforts to include the Immigration 
Reform and Transition Act, as modified, in this current legislation. It 
is important that we take this step today, or as soon thereafter as 
possible. There are thousands of families who are currently in a legal 
limbo because of the retroactive changes that were made in the 
immigration laws that were passed in 1996. Senator Mack, Senator 
Kennedy, and others have worked to develop a bipartisan, humane 
solution to give these families the opportunity to remain together--and 
I underscore the word ``opportunity''--and to continue the lives that 
they have built in hundreds of our local communities in the United 
States.
  I can tell you from personal knowledge and experience and 
relationships, that the people to whom this amendment is primarily 
directed are, in the overwhelming number, hard-working, tax-paying, 
law-abiding individuals who have followed every rule and regulation 
since they have been resident in the United States and are making a 
contribution to the development of our country. Since the 1996 
retroactive immigration bill passed, with the consequences that Senator 
Mack has just outlined, these families have lived in fear, fear of 
being uprooted and torn apart, and fear that all of their hard work in 
the United States will be for naught. We now have the chance to act and 
ease these fears.
  The thousands of people we are seeking justice for have human faces. 
They are not just statistics, they are not just theories in an 
Immigration Act. I want to submit for the Record, stories that mention 
the human dimension of this important amendment. Also, I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record, editorials in support of the 
actions we are urging today.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

[[Page S10198]]

                 [From the Miami Herald, Mar. 4, 1997]

                       Deportations Without Cause

       Once again the United States has thrown up a hurdle to 
     stymie immigrants who have legitimate grounds to stay in this 
     country. A recent ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals 
     could send packing tens of thousands of Nicaraguans, 
     Salvadorans, Mexicans, and others who have lived in this 
     country for years.
       The case before the board involved a Nicaraguan woman from 
     Miami who had been served deportation orders. Like any number 
     who fled Nicaragua during the 1980s, she sought legal status 
     under immigration rules that offer relief to those who, among 
     other criteria, have been in the United States for at least 
     seven years. The board rule 7-5 that she was ineligible for 
     relief, however. It interpreted the new Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act to mean that her time 
     in the United States ended when she was served a summons 
     called an ``Order to Show Cause.'' Though physically she had 
     resided and worked in the United States more than the 
     required time, the board said, officially she did not meet 
     the seven-year criteria for suspending her deportation.
       Ernesto Varas, the woman's attorney, is one among many who 
     dispute that legal interpretation. He now plans to take the 
     case to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, 
     there is little comfort for those living under threat of 
     deportation. The INS, which is still mulling the Immigration 
     Board ruling, doesn't offer an estimate of how many may be 
     affected. In South Florida, estimates range from 20,000 to 
     75,000 possible deportees. The prospect alarmed even 
     Nicaragua's National Assembly, which argued in a letter to 
     the U.S. Congress that its economy is in no shape to absorb 
     such an impact.
       Alternatives to deportation should be sought. Particularly 
     for Nicaraguans, who sought refuge from the Sandinista regime 
     in the country that financed the war against the Sandinistas. 
     Deportation would mean unjust hardship for folks who have 
     lived here peaceably for years, such as Nicaraguan Juan Sorto 
     of Fort Lauderdale. As reported by Mabell Dieppa in El Nuevo 
     Herald, Mr. Sorto entered the United States from Mexico on 
     Jan. 2, 1987. Served with an Order to Show Cause the same 
     day, he may not qualify for relief from deportation--even 
     though the INS released him on bail and issued him work 
     permits, and even though he has paid taxes and supported his 
     three U.S.-born children for 10 years here.
       Attorney General Janet Reno should keep in mind Mr. Sorto 
     and contradictory U.S. policy and review the Immigration 
     Board's recent ruling along with its implementation by the 
     INS.
                                                                    ____


                 [From the Miami Herald, May 22, 1997]

                       Defending the Indefensible

       It's bad enough that Congress passed the immoral illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, now in 
     effect. It's worse that the U.S. Immigration and 
     Nationalization Service is incapable of enforcing this law 
     with any measure of commonsense or consistency. It's worse 
     still that the highest immigration court misinterpreted--
     forcing the INS to misapply--the law so that overnight tens 
     of thousands of Nicaraguans and other longtime immigrants 
     became deportable aliens.
       But worse of all, what's happening now in U.S. District 
     Court in Miami is simply reprehensible: The federal 
     government is using its full weight to try to keep those 
     immigrants from having their deserved say in court.
       The Nicaraguans are suing the government in a class-action 
     suit representing some 30,000 to 40,000 immigrants who could 
     qualify for legal status if not for the retroactive 
     application of a provision in the new law. Under that 
     provision, immigrants we were served ``show-cause'' papers by 
     immigration authorities before their seventh year in the 
     United States no longer qualify for relief from deportation.
       Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King heard 
     testimony for two days last week and temporarily barred the 
     deportation of those immigrants. U.S. attorneys argued that 
     under the new law, federal courts do not have jurisdiction in 
     these immigration cases. The government's argument ``would 
     require the court to rule that there is simply no remedy 
     available for the 30,000 to 40,000 Nicaraguan refugees and 
     others who have sought suspension of deportation. The court 
     declines to do so,'' ruled Judge King. Well done, and well 
     said.
       Unbelievably, however, government lawyers are still 
     battling to keep the immigrants from their right to a 
     hearing. Why? Because their testimony would form a factual 
     record on the merit of their claims for an appellate court to 
     review. Congress is empowered to limit courts' jurisdiction, 
     Judge King wrote. But it can't deny courts their power to 
     review constitutional questions.
       To his credit, Judge King has called the government 
     lawyers' bluff. He ordered them to produce thousands of pages 
     of documents to the immigrants' lawyers by tomorrow. He 
     ordered INS Commissioner Doris Meissner and other officials 
     to appear in his court on Saturday and Monday for 
     depositions. And he set a hearing on a temporary injunction 
     for next Tuesday.
       Now it's the government's move. Could it just make too much 
     sense to stop wasting tax dollars trying to deport 
     productive, taxpaying, longtime immigrants without due 
     process, a hearing to which they're entitled? We'll soon see.
                                                                    ____


         [From the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, June 26, 1997]

   Reno Should Back Judge's Ruling, Help Nicaraguans to Stay in Peace

       It's temporary reprieve, but a welcome and justifiable one, 
     for 40,000 Nicaraguans who were about to be deported from 
     this country. In a lengthy ruling, dripping with anger at the 
     government and packed with compassion for hard-working 
     immigrants, U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King blocked 
     their deportation at least until a trial can be held in 
     January.
       Their deportation orders should be revoked permanently. 
     Nicaraguans who fled to this country in the 1980s as refugees 
     from their country's bloody civil war, in which the United 
     States was deeply involved, were at first helped by the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service to get work permits 
     and find jobs.
       As King pointed out, the Nicaraguans then established 
     homes, married, had children and grandchildren, started 
     businesses, paid taxes, obeyed our laws and contributed to 
     their communities. In return, INS changed the rules in 
     midstream and tried to deport them to their native land.
       That's unfair and unacceptable. ``Their hopes and 
     expectations of remaining in the United States were raised 
     and then dashed'' by INS' change in policy, King said, and if 
     they're deported they'll be separated from their children and 
     irreparably harmed.
       King's ruling in Miami was gutsy and appropriate. It lashes 
     at the INS for misinterpreting a new immigration law and for 
     luring tens of thousands of Nicaraguans to apply for 
     suspension of deportation--and pay a fee--while knowing full 
     well Congress was considering eliminating that right of 
     suspension.
       The Nicaraguans, stung and frightened by unfair government 
     treatment in a nation supposedly built on fairness, have gone 
     underground, or pulled their children from school, or decline 
     to come forward for medical treatment. One Nicaraguan child, 
     cited by King in his ruling, died when his parents refused to 
     bring him to a hospital for treatment.
       The Nicaraguans thought, not without some validity, that by 
     appearing in public they would be picked up and deported. 
     That's perhaps the saddest story, with the most painful 
     lesson to emerge from this debacle: Come forward voluntarily, 
     and some U.S. government agent could send you packing, 
     leaving your American-born children behind.
       The best way to end this deeply embarrassing episode is for 
     Attorney General Janet Reno, one of the defendants, to 
     convince her boss, President Clinton, that the new 
     immigration law has been misintepreted. Then the INS should 
     slink away, and let the Nicaraguans live in peace, in what 
     Judge King referred to as ``a nation renowned throughout the 
     civilized world for justice, fairness and respect for human 
     rights.''

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am working today to offer fairness and 
justice for a woman who lives in Miami. She is 86 years old. She and 
her family came to America, encouraged by the U.S. Government to do so 
in 1984. Without this amendment, she faces almost certain deportation 
back to Nicaragua. With this amendment she has the chance, the 
opportunity to apply to be considered on her own individual merits, 
based on her length of residence in the United States and her 
contributions since she has been in this country, to stay in the United 
States on a permanent, secure basis.
  I also speak on behalf of an 18-year-old student at Coral Park High 
School in Miami. This student's parents fled Nicaragua when he was 7 
years old. His family was allowed to stay under the old law, and now he 
may be forced back to a country with which he has almost no connection.
  These two examples, an elderly lady and a young man, are examples of 
the people to whom we are attempting to apply fundamental fairness, to 
give them the opportunity to apply on their own merits, on their own 
records in this country, for a legal, permanent status. These families 
have been in our Nation since the early 1980's, since our Government 
encouraged them to flee Communist oppression and civil unrest in 
Central America. Speaking specifically to those who have come from 
Nicaragua, they fled a nation which had been taken over by a Communist 
regime, which was supported by the then-Soviet Union. In one of the 
last of those cold war confrontations in a third country, between the 
Soviet Union and the United States, the United States encouraged those 
Nicaraguans to leave, to come and to participate in the effort, which 
was finally successful, to restore democratic government to Nicaragua.
  Mr. President, 15 years after they came at our request, they own 
their

[[Page S10199]]

own homes, they have U.S. citizen children, they have opened up small 
businesses, they have become flourishing entrepreneurs. Now we have 
changed the rules and threaten to divide families. This massive 
upheaval would be detrimental, not only to the individuals affected, 
but also to Central American nations that would be forced to absorb 
thousands of new residents. This action, taken in 1996, if not modified 
by this amendment which Senator Mack, Senator Kennedy, and I are 
proposing today, would have adverse effects on U.S. interests in this 
important region. It would have a destabilizing effect today. It would 
have an even greater impact in the future, when, God forbid, we were 
ever in another situation as we were in Nicaragua in the early 1980's. 
How could the United States with any credibility call out to the people 
of that country to resist the actions of governments which were 
antithetical to U.S. interests?
  I believe the honor of the United States of America is at stake in 
this amendment that we offer today. I emphasize, as Senator Mack has so 
effectively done, that this is not an amnesty program. We are not 
stating that all of these people who meet the standards covered by this 
amendment will become permanent residents, or have any other legal 
status in the United States. What we are saying is that under the rules 
that applied at the time they came into this country, at our 
invitation, they will have the right to apply. They will have the right 
to apply to receive permanent residence. It will then be their 
obligation to meet the standards to justify a permanent status in the 
United States. That is fundamental American fairness.
  By adopting this amendment and by recommitting ourselves to that 
standard of fairness and justice, we will be sending a strong message, 
that we will support the foreign policy objectives that led to our call 
in the first instance. We will be sending a strong message that the 
United States of America believes in playing by the rules and not 
changing those rules in midlife.
  These families deserve that message of fairness. They deserve it now. 
They fled persecution and communism to seek a safe haven in our 
country. They assisted our country in restoring democracy to their 
country. We must not abandon them now.

  Mr. President, I yield back my time to my colleague, Senator Mack, 
and also to Senator Abraham, for further comments on this issue. Thank 
you, Mr. President.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I rise today to speak in support of the amendment offered by the 
Senators from Florida. This may be a somewhat unusual occurrence in the 
Senate, because it is often the case that individuals who chair 
authorizing committees, in this case the Immigration Subcommittee which 
I chair, frequently are at odds with Members who seek to use 
appropriations bills as vehicles for substantive legislation.
  So I wanted to come down today to speak on behalf of this amendment 
and to explain it a little bit, both why I am not here in opposition on 
the basis of the process we are using, and also why I support doing 
something at this time along the lines outlined in the amendment.
  First, Mr. President, let me just indicate that a number of us have 
been working for some months to try to resolve the issues that are 
addressed by this amendment. We are working with our House 
counterparts. We will continue to work, even as we move forward in the 
Senate today, to try to find an ultimate solution.
  At the same time, though, time is of the essence. There is a sense of 
urgency, I think a growing sense of urgency, among a number of Members, 
as expressed by both the Senators from Florida, as well as in my case 
and probably other Members as well, because the impact of the 1996 
immigration legislation is slowly but surely coming into effect. The 
people who may or may not be affected by that legislation, depending on 
the various decisions to be made by the Department of Justice and the 
courts, are living on a day-to-day basis under the threat of the 
prospect of deportation. It seems it is in everyone's interest, but it 
is also in the interest of fairness for these individuals, for us to 
try to take legislative action to resolve and address these matters 
once and for all.
  Both Senators have already talked at some length about the chronology 
of circumstances that brings us here today. I won't go into all the 
detail, nor do I have the sort of personal, firsthand experience of 
having served in the Senate or the Congress at the time many of these 
issues were previously debated. I am a late arrival to the debate, and 
I am more an observer of the circumstances that took place in Central 
America than a participant.
  Those were significant times, Mr. President. The civil wars of the 
1980's in El Salvador, in Guatemala, and Nicaragua were integrally 
related to the national security policy of our country, as well as our 
views with regard to America's role in our hemisphere.
  Throughout the 1980's and into the early 1990's, El Salvador lived 
through a brutal civil war which left tens of thousands of people 
killed, over a quarter of the population driven from their homes and 
the economy in shambles. Hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans made 
their way to the United States seeking asylum out of fear of being 
killed by the military, the leftist guerrillas or the extreme right 
death squads. In fact, from fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1991, 
approximately 126,000 Salvadorans applied for asylum. That was a 
quarter of all our asylum applications in that timeframe.
  Meanwhile, similar events took place in Guatemala. Approximately 
42,000 Guatemalans applied for asylum in the United States.
  Meanwhile, the civil war in Nicaragua in the 1980's also prompted 
actions of a similar nature. As you know, Mr. President, during the 
1980s, there was a war between the Communist-influenced Sandinistas, 
who controlled the government at the time, and groups seeking to 
overthrow that government. These groups ultimately were supported by 
the U.S. Government and became known as the Contras. The war drained 
the Nicaraguan economy, which was battered as well by a United States 
embargo on trade and a series of natural disasters. Approximately 
126,000 Nicaraguans applied for asylum in the United States from 1981 
to 1991.

  What happened when these various people came to our country was 
somewhat different than what happened to others who have come here. 
First of all, many of these people were, in one form or another, either 
asylees or invitees. Indeed, the actions with regard to the Nicaraguans 
in particular suggests that the American Government was actively 
promoting the notion that those Nicaraguans, fearful of the outcome of 
these uprisings, come to America. The extended voluntary departure 
program, which was granted by our Attorney General, was a form of 
temporary protection from deportation granted under the discretionary 
authority of the Attorney General.
  When that program, which began in 1979, expired, it was extended 
further through a variety of other congressional actions and 
administrative actions. In 1987, the Reagan administration established 
the Nicaraguan Review Program. The NRP provided an extra level of 
review to Nicaraguans denied asylum. The Attorney General, taking into 
account a new Supreme Court decision bearing on standard of proof for 
an asylum applicant to show fear of persecution, encouraged Nicaraguans 
to reapply for asylum under the new standard and instructed the INS to 
conduct outreach in Nicaraguan communities and to issue work permits to 
Nicaraguan applicants as soon as they applied for asylum under the new 
standard.
  When that program ended in 1995, the INS published a notice 
announcing the termination of the program. Instead of facing 
deportation, however, under a phaseout program, Nicaraguans were 
encouraged to reopen their deportation cases and apply for suspension 
of deportation, for which they were told they may be eligible if they 
had been in the United States continuously for 7 or more years.
  The point of my statement with respect to Nicaraguans, and a similar 
set of circumstances as pertains to the Salvadorans and Guatemalans, is 
that during this period, Mr. President, in the 1980's, this country 
actively encouraged people fearing persecution,

[[Page S10200]]

fearing death squads, fearing disruptions of their communities to come 
to America. Then we took extraordinary measures to make it feasible for 
them to stay here, even those who had been denied asylum through the 
official asylum-seeking procedures.
  All of this transpired, Mr. President, prior to the passage of the 
1996 immigration bill. At that point, things changed. Here I think it 
is very important to understand some of the legal circumstances that 
changed.
  Prior to the passage of the 1996 bill, if someone had been in this 
country for a period of 7 years or more, they were permitted to seek 
suspension and adjustment of their status from being in illegal status 
here or being here under one of the special programs for the Central 
Americans. Extensions were given to the Central American communities I 
have mentioned to allow them to stay here long enough to apply for 
these programs.
  Detrimental reliance on their part occurred under the belief that if 
they continued to follow these programs, they would be given their day 
in court and given a fair adjudication of their status, and that is 
what transpired.
  At every step of the way, either through an act of Congress or 
through an act of the executive branch, these individuals were given, I 
think, a very clear signal that they would be able remain if they 
played by the rules that were then existent: That if they stayed for 7 
years and proved themselves to be of good moral character, they would 
be given an opportunity to have a full adjudication of whether or not 
any process to deport them would be suspended and whether or not they 
would be given a green card and a chance to stay permanently.
  However, the 1996 bill changed the rules under which this would be 
permitted. In my judgment, Mr. President, it was not the intent of 
Congress to have this 1996 legislation retroactively apply to the 
people in these circumstances. I believe that Congress tried to avoid 
changing the standard retroactively.
  We specifically provided that, generally speaking, the old rules are 
supposed to be applied to people in deportation proceedings before 
April 1, 1997, the effective date of the act. The problem is the INS 
has interpreted the act as saying that many of the Central Americans 
were not in deportation proceedings before that time and, hence, it has 
to apply the tougher new standards to them.
  Now, the basis on which this determination was made by the INS, I 
believe, Mr. President, is extremely subject to question. I think it is 
an extremely difficult case to make that the group that the INS has 
argued were not in proceedings as of April 1, 1996, truly were not in 
proceedings. I believe they acted exactly as they had been told they 
should act, to qualify for the adjudications I have mentioned. But for 
whatever reason, the INS has concluded that, as to them, we will 
retroactively change the rules.
  Let me talk about what those rule changes would be. First, as opposed 
to being required to be in the country for 7 years, the requirement was 
changed to 10 years, meaning an additional 3 years before one could 
even seek to have their status cleared. In addition, the standard to be 
used in such adjudications was made much more difficult. In other 
words, the standard that people had been promised they would be judged 
by for all the years they were here was altered and made a much tougher 
standard retroactively after they had stayed longer, after they had 
detrimentally relied on the assurances they had been granted with 
regard to whether or not they would be given a hearing, and after they 
had been told what they had every reason to expect was the basis on 
which the relief would be granted.
  Furthermore, based on a judicial decision made within the immigration 
courts, the clock was stopped with respect to the accrual of time 
toward the 10-year standard, or, for that matter, the old 7-year 
standard, because it was determined as soon as the individuals had 
received so-called orders to show cause, the clock would stop.
  Mr. President, these are obviously fairly complicated legal terms, 
and I will try to simplify them here for purposes of this discussion. 
The rules were changed in the middle of the game to the detrimental 
reliance of literally thousands of individuals who had been waiting and 
playing by the rules and, in most cases, had actually made themselves 
available for this process by coming forward in response to 
requirements that had been in the earlier legislation that had set the 
process in motion.
  Now they had a choice when the earlier legislation was passed. They 
could have disappeared into the country, never subjected themselves to 
the process, and been totally immune from any deportation unless they 
were somehow discovered. Alternatively, they could make themselves 
available, accept orders to show cause, subject themselves to the 
process under a standard they believed would remain in place until they 
had their trials, and then either be able to stay or be required to 
leave based on a fair adjudication.
  For the people who played by the rules, the second group, the rules 
are now being changed. They will be disadvantaged as opposed to the 
people who did not play by the rules. To me, Mr. President, that would 
be a complete and catastrophic mistake for us to make. It has to be 
addressed in the interests of fairness.
  Now, there is another thing that has changed that I will also mention 
in the bill that was passed in 1996, a limit, a cap of 4,000 
suspensions and adjustments per year was placed and put in force. I 
believe it was put in force at that level because it was the view of 
the drafters of the legislation that 4,000 would be adequate to meet 
the amount of such suspensions and adjustments of status that would be 
granted by the reviewing boards, the immigration courts. I believe that 
4,000 figure was recommended by the Immigration Service because it was 
never contemplated that it would be applied to those who are in this 
category of Central Americans we are trying to address today because 
this category is a much larger group. They will consume more than 4,000 
adjustments per year, because at least that many and probably as many 
as 7,000 or 8,000 more per year will meet the standard and be permitted 
to stay.

  The cap now in place has the perverse effect of literally putting 
people in a position where if they somehow meet the 7- or 10-year 
standard, if they somehow meet the adjudicatory standard of whether or 
not they will be permitted to stay if the 4,000 cap is reached, they 
will still be deported. Now, I can't imagine that that was the intent 
of the drafters, and I can't imagine, frankly, Mr. President, it would 
be sustained in the Federal court system. I believe it is one of a 
variety of problems that now exists and which will be effectively 
addressed by Senator Mack's proposal.
  To summarize what these problems are, there are the constitutional 
issues that I think will arise. The due process question is whether the 
standards could be changed in the middle of the game and applied 
retroactively. We have the problem of this cap, which potentially 
creates the absurd circumstance I just described where people who have 
been adjudged to be able to stay in the country are still deported 
because the 4,000 limit has been reached. We have the anomaly I have 
described where those people who were trying to play by the rules, who 
subjected themselves to the process in response to legislation we 
passed, would suddenly find themselves in a disadvantaged position as 
opposed to those who never played by the rules in the first place. And 
what we have, in effect, is a circumstance that I describe as bait and 
switch. We encouraged people to come forward, to make themselves 
available for the adjudicatory process, and once they do, based on this 
interpretation of the 1996 bill, we have now changed the standard by 
which they will be subjected and changed whether or not even if they 
successfully meet a standard, they will be allowed to stay.
  For all those reasons, I think we really have to do something in the 
short run, not wait any longer. I think the bill offered by Senator 
Mack makes sense, and it is consistent with the long history of 
America's response to the Central American community and to the 
struggles of the 1980's. For that reason, as I said at the outset, 
although it is a little bit unusual for an authorizing committee 
chairman to come down to the floor to support the inclusion of 
legislation within their sphere on appropriations, I support this

[[Page S10201]]

legislation and look forward to working with other Members--if we are 
going to pass this--work both with the Senators as well as with our 
House colleagues to try to ultimately reach a solution that is 
satisfactory to everyone affected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Abraham not only for 
his eloquent statement but also his understanding of the matter of why 
we have ended up in this situation of having to deal with this issue on 
an appropriations bill. Again, I appreciate both your effort and your 
staff's effort over this last week or 10 days to try to keep making the 
effort to see if there was some way we could come to some agreement 
that would not have to put the Senate through this debate. So again, 
your counsel was invaluable, and I appreciate your presence on the 
floor as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the 
Judiciary Committee. It is very meaningful to have your support, and we 
thank you very much.
  Just a couple of other comments, Mr. President. I wanted to indicate 
some of those who are supportive of this legislation. I have a letter 
from Empower America that is signed by Jeane Kirkpatrick, former 
Ambassador to the United Nations; Jack Kemp, former Member of Congress 
and former Secretary of HUD; William Bennett, former Secretary of 
Education; Lamar Alexander, former Secretary of Education; and Steve 
Forbes. All of them are supporting the legislation, making some of the 
same points that have been made already in the debate this morning. 
They urge support of the bill.
  ``We urge you to join in standing in solidarity with free people and 
democratic governments of our Central American neighbors and friends.''
  The point they stressed in the letter is that the Central American 
countries, who, in essence, we went to bat for in the 1980's to protect 
democracy and to move them toward freedom and capitalism, today are 
still struggling in that battle. To send several hundred thousand 
individuals back into an environment, for example, in Nicaragua, where 
the unemployment rate is 60 percent, would destabilize those countries, 
which would be just the opposite of the effort that we made in the 
1980's.
  Again, I appreciate their letter and their support of this 
legislation. To give you a sense of the range of support, my colleague 
from Florida mentioned several editorials. I don't want to duplicate 
those editorials, but I ask unanimous consent that letters from Empower 
America and the National Restaurant Association be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Empower America,

                               Washington, DC, September 29, 1997.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Trent Lott: In the 1980s, we stood in 
     solidarity with the people and governments of Central America 
     who struggled for democracy and peace when threatened by 
     expanding Communist violence and influence. We stand in 
     solidarity with them today, as they work to consolidate 
     democracy and free market economies.
       Central America's struggles of the last decade caused 
     thousands of Central Americans to flee to the United States. 
     These Central American refugees have tried to comply with 
     U.S. laws and with the immigration requirements which 
     governed their presence in this country. These rules and 
     understandings have now been changed retroactively and 
     unfairly. Our Central American friends living in the United 
     States now face unexpected and unjust deportations, and their 
     countries of origin will face destabilization. Central 
     America will not be able to simultaneously absorb influxes of 
     large numbers of people being forcibly deported and the 
     deprivation of family remittances that have bolstered these 
     struggling economies.
       The ex post facto legislation under which Central Americans 
     in our country are threatened with deportation undermines and 
     violates our principles and one of President Reagan's most 
     cherished legacies--a stable and free Central America.
       Senator Connie Mack has introduced the Immigration Reform 
     Transition Act, S. 1076, legislation which will rectify this 
     unfortunate situation. We urge you to support this bill. We 
     urge you to join us in standing in solidarity with the free 
     people and democratic governments of our Central American 
     neighbors and friends.
           Sincerely,
     Jeane Kirkpatrick.
     Jack Kemp.
     William Bennett.
     Lamar Alexander.
     Steve Forbes.
                                                                    ____



                              National Restaurant Association,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 1997.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Restaurant 
     Association and the 787,000 restaurants nationwide, we urge 
     you to support bipartisan immigration legislation that will 
     provide relief for many hardworking members--employees--of 
     the restaurant industry.
       First, we urge you to support permanent extension of 
     Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as part 
     of the Fiscal Year 1998 Commerce, State, Justice 
     Appropriations bill. Section 245(i), which sunsets on 
     September 30, 1997, enables certain restaurant employees who 
     are eligible for permanent resident status to remain in the 
     United States while their application for a ``green card'' is 
     being processed. By definition, these are employees who are 
     outstanding in their field or for whom no U.S. worker is 
     available. Many families and businesses will be disrupted if 
     these employees are forced to return to their home country to 
     wait for paperwork.
       Second, we urge you to support bipartisan legislation, H.R. 
     2302, introduced by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and S. 
     1076, introduced by Senators Connie Mack (R-FL) and Edward 
     Kennedy (D-MA). In 1996 Congress passed the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) 
     which made many important immigration reforms. However, one 
     provision would apply new standards and restrictions 
     retroactively, making it much more difficult for certain 
     immigrants--who are residing in this country legally--to get 
     relief.
       Most affected by the provision are thousands of Central 
     Americans from El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala who have 
     been in this country legally under temporary protection from 
     deportation while civil wars in their countries made it 
     dangerous for them to go home. These refugees, having lived 
     and worked here for at least seven years, are eligible to 
     remain in the U.S. permanently. The 1996 Act changed the 
     rules of this relief. H.R. 2302 and S. 1076 would prevent the 
     new rules of IIRIRA from being applied to cases that were 
     ending when the law went into effect on April 1, 1997.
       Thank you for your consideration and support.
           Sincerely,

                                             Elaine Z. Graham,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                Government Affairs and Membership.
                                              Christina M. Howard,
                                Senior Legislative Representative.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that editorials from 
the Miami Herald, New York Times, and Washington Times be printed in 
the Record, also.
  There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Miami Herald, Sept. 3, 1997]

                       Fix Cruel Immigration Law

       Fresh from summer recess, Congress returns this week to 
     tackle substantive issues anew. One that it needs to address 
     is the plight of longtime immigrants who unjustly face 
     deportation because of an unfair, un-American law.
       Enacted by the same Congress that brought you anti-
     immigrant welfare reform, a new 1996 immigration law denies 
     the chance to gain legal status to hundreds of thousands of 
     Central Americans and others who have lived peaceably in the 
     United States for years. Some of the new law is so shameful 
     that Senior U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King, in a 
     class-action suit in Miami, has ruled that it violates the 
     due-process rights of some 40,000 Nicaraguans with more than 
     seven years in this country.
       After Judge King forbade the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service to deport these class members, Attorney General Janet 
     Reno commendably extended the same protections nationwide to 
     cover an estimated 150,000 Savadorans and 80,000 Guatemalans 
     as well. These people also fled U.S. supported civil wars in 
     their homelands during the 1980s. Many have been issued work 
     permits repeatedly and have established families and 
     businesses. They send billions of dollars to loved ones back 
     in their homelands, helping keep struggling economies afloat 
     and dampening illegal immigration to the United States.
       Unjust immigration law should be corrected. To their 
     credit, a number of legislators have submitted various 
     proposals with that intent, the best of which was authored by 
     U.S. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Miami. An administration-
     backed bill, proposed by Sens. Bob Graham, D-Miami Lakes, 
     Connie Mack, R-Cape Coral, and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, 
     removes a retroactive ``stop-time'' rule that unfairly 
     prevents many longtime immigrants from gaining resident 
     status. But an onerous provision that denies immigrants 
     judicial review is most offensive and quite possibly 
     unconstitutional.
       Under Mr. Diaz-Balart's legislation, immigrants in 
     deportation proceedings before the new law went into effect 
     last April 1 would rightly qualify for relief under previous, 
     more-favorable rules. The same would apply to Nicaraguans, 
     Guatemalans, and Salvadorans who filed asylum claims before 
     April

[[Page S10202]]

     1990; many of them have been hurt by tremendous INS backlogs. 
     (It would be better if the asylum provision extended to 
     Haitians and others immigrants, too). Folks covered by the 
     bill also would be exempt from a arbitrary cap that limits to 
     4,000 the deportations that may be canceled annually.
       Much as its earlier budget legislation restored significant 
     welfare benefits to legal immigrants, let Congress now 
     reverse a cruel immigration law's punitive provisions.
                                                                    ____


               [From the New York Times, Sept. 29, 1997]

                       Flaws in Immigration Laws

       The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
     Act of 1996 is a morass of technical complexity that has yet 
     to be fully explicated by either the law's drafters or the 
     immigration officers who are supposed to carry it out. But it 
     is already apparent that at least two elements need immediate 
     correction.
       One provision unfairly punishes refugees from Nicaragua, El 
     Salvador and Guatemala who fled civil wars in the 1980's and 
     were given temporary protection from deportation. Under prior 
     law, these refugees, totaling abut 300,000 could have become 
     permanent residents by showing that they had lived here for 
     seven years and had good moral character, and that 
     deportation would cause them and their family members extreme 
     hardship. The 1996 act increased the residency requirements 
     to 10 years, eliminated hardship to the refugee himself as a 
     basis to fight deportation and limited the number of 
     immigrants who could seek permanent residency through this 
     avenue to 4,000.
       These Central Americans played by an earlier set of rules 
     endorsed by both Republican and Democratic administrations, 
     but are now being unjustly penalized. The White House 
     supports, and Congress should pass, a bill introduced by 
     Senator Connie Mack, a Florida Republican, that would exempt 
     this group from provisions of the new law, allowing the prior 
     legal standards to apply.
       A second provision would actually encourage illegals to 
     stay underground rather than risk going abroad, as they might 
     soon have to, to obtain immigrant visas. The new law imposes 
     a three-year bar to re-entry on illegals who leave the 
     country today and a 10-year bar on those who leave after 
     April 1. If a key provision in current immigration law is 
     allowed to expire tomorrow, as scheduled, illegals will have 
     to return to their home countries to obtain permanent visas.
       Under the current role, people who qualify for permanent 
     residency can have their applications for immigrant visas, or 
     ``green cards,'' processed here rather than through American 
     consulate in their home countries. This does not give them 
     any preference. But it reduces paperwork at consulate offices 
     abroad, and generates $200 million a year in revenues from 
     applicants who pay $1,000 each to have their papers processed 
     here.
       The Senate has voted to make the provision permanent, but 
     the House is expected to vote only on a three-week extension. 
     If Congress does not renew the provision, hundreds of 
     thousands of people will have to go abroad for green cards. 
     Thousands who have met the criteria for permanent residency 
     but are technically illegal in status would be barred from 
     coming back for years.
       Fighting illegal immigration is a difficult and important 
     job. But Congress should do it in a way that will deter 
     illegal entry at the border. Deporting Central American war 
     refugees and those who are on the verge of getting green 
     cards will not achieve that goal.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Times, Aug. 22, 1997]

                     Righting an Immigration Wrong

       Back in the 1980s when communist regimes and insurgences 
     swept through Central America, it was clear to many here that 
     those nations were badly in need of help. The Reagan 
     administration took up the cause of the Contras in Nicaragua, 
     offered support for the beleaguered government of El 
     Salvador, even invading Grenada to prevent communism from 
     gaining foothold in the hemisphere. Despite the best efforts 
     of Democrats to undermine the effort, it was a remarkably 
     successful policy. Today, democracy dominates the region, and 
     economic reconstruction is taking shape.
       But there is one forgotten chapter of the story, which 
     could have a less than happy ending. That's the over 300,000 
     refugees from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, who ended 
     up in the United States, fleeing persecution, danger and 
     poverty in their home countries, victims of forces far beyond 
     their control.
       The status of the refugees was not exactly legal, but not 
     exactly illegal either. They were granted various forms of 
     temporary protection from deportation, which in accordance 
     with the law would become permanent if certain conditions 
     were met: seven years of continuous residency, a record of 
     good behavior, and proof of hardships awaiting in their 
     native countries. As a consequence, the refugees settled, had 
     children, many becoming a part of the U.S. workforce that 
     Washington knows very well indeed, the nannies, housekeepers 
     and gardeners that so many have come to rely on.
       That was until the 1996 Immigration Act changed 
     everything--and did so retroactively. Aimed not so much at 
     the Central Americans but at deterring new refugees, the law 
     capped the number of grantees at 4,000, changed the 
     conditions, and mandated immediate deportation of those who 
     were rejected. To obtain what is now known as ``cancellation 
     of removal,'' a refugee must now have been in the country for 
     10 years, show good character and demonstrate ``extreme or 
     exceptional hardship'' to a U.S. citizen or resident, be that 
     a spouse, child or parent--but, oddly, not the refugee 
     himself.
       Also, the clock ``stops ticking'' on those 10 years, the 
     moment the INS removal proceedings start. That means that if 
     you applied in good faith after your seven years in the 
     country (as per the 1986 law), and got rejected for having 
     accumulated too little time (in accordance with the 1096 
     law), you would now be out of luck because you could not 
     accumulate more time. If this sounds Kafkaesque, it's because 
     it surely is.
       About 1,000 people were deported before the outcry from the 
     Latin American community and the governments in the region 
     caused the Clinton administration to reverse course. On July 
     10, Attorney General Janet Reno vacated a Board of 
     Immigration Appeal's decision in a test case, and the 
     deportations were halted, though last week one Nicaraguan was 
     deported, the first since the attorney general's decision. 
     Bills in the House and Senate will be taken up when Congress 
     comes back to fix the unintended consequences of the 1996 
     Immigration Act and to grant relief from the 4,000 annual 
     cap. All the refugees want is a hearing based on the 
     conditions at the time when they were granted temporary 
     stay--in other words eliminate the element of retroactivity 
     in the law, which indeed only seems fair.
       But there is not only the refugees to think of here. If we 
     want the fragile economies of Central America to recover, 
     governments in the region will need breathing space. 
     Nicaragua, for instance, has an unemployment rate of 60 
     percent and cannot afford to absorb its 250,000 refugees in 
     the United States. Nor indeed can the country afford to do 
     without the remittance sent by Nicaraguans here to their 
     families at home. In other words, giving the Central American 
     refugees the fair shake they deserve will also mean giving 
     their countries a chance to stabilize, which, after all, has 
     been the aim of the U.S. policy deal all around, for them and 
     for us.

  Mr. MACK. Again, I mention those particular editorials because I 
think it gives you a sense of the range of support, both Democrat and 
Republican, from conservative to those considered liberal, who support 
our action and support this amendment.
  Mr. President, there are several things I need to do.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Santorum be added as an original 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, just to close this portion of the debate, 
there may be some that are saying, why are we doing this now? I ask 
people to try to put themselves in a position of a group of people who 
have, in fact, played by the rules, as was so eloquently laid out by 
Senator Abraham, and now there is the great potential that the rules 
could be changed on them and they would be denied due process. That is 
fundamentally wrong.
  I want people to think about what it must be like to wake up each 
morning and wonder whether you are going to be one of those that will 
be the subject of deportation. Think about the fear that must be going 
through that family, that mother or father, when that child goes off to 
school that afternoon or that morning. What is going to happen? Are 
they going to receive a notice of deportation? I know that our Nation 
does not want to impose that kind of fear on people. That is counter to 
everything that we believe.
  So again, I ask those who have listened to this debate and will be 
voting to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Mack and Senator 
Graham in offering this amendment on behalf of Central American 
refugees. The amendment we propose today closely parellels S. 1076 the 
Immigration Reform Transition Act of 1997 proposed by President 
Clinton, which we introduced on July 28.
  Without this legislation, thousands of Central American refugee 
families who fled death squads and persecution in their native lands 
and found safe haven in the United States would be forced to return. 
Republican and Democratic administrations alike promised them 
repeatedly that they will get their day in court to make their claims 
to remain in the United States.
  Last year's immigration law, however, turned its back on that 
commitment and treated these families unfairly. This legislation 
reinstates that promise and guarantees these families the day in court 
they deserve.
  Virtually all of these families fled to the United States in the 
1980's from El Salvador, Nicaragua, or Guatemala. Many were targeted by 
death squads and faced persecution at the hands of rogue militias. They 
came to America

[[Page S10203]]

to seek safety and freedom for themselves and their children.
  The Reagan administration, the Bush Administration, and the Clinton 
administration assured them that they could apply to remain permanently 
in the United States under our immigration laws. They were promised 
that if they have lived here for at least 7 years and are of good moral 
character, and if a return to Central America will be an unusual 
hardship, they would be allowed to remain. Last year's immigration law 
violated that commitment.
  President Clinton has promised to find a fair and reasonable solution 
for these families, and the administration will use its authority to 
help as many of them as possible. But Congress must do its part too, by 
enacting this corrective legislation.
  Some are opposing this legislation as an amnesty for illegal aliens. 
That charge is false. It is an insult to these hard-working refugees, 
and their families who have suffered so much pain and hardship and who 
relied in good faith on the solemn promise they were given.
  Virtually all of these families are already known to the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service. They are not illegal aliens working 
underground. These families have applied to come to the United States 
under INS programs, and they are here on a variety of temporary 
immigration categories. They have acted in accord with what our 
Government told them to do.
  Not all of these families will qualify to remain here under the terms 
of this amendment. They still must meet certain standards that existed 
in the law, before last year's immigration law was enacted and applied 
retroactively. The Immigration Service estimates that less than half of 
those who qualify to apply to remain in this country will be approved.
  These families are law-abiding, tax-paying members of communities in 
all parts of America. In many many cases, they have children who were 
born in this country and who are U.S. citizens by birth. They deserve 
to be treated fairly, and I urge the Senate to support the amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will not raise a point of order against 
Senator Mack's amendment. Though I continue to have numerous concerns 
about the proposed measure, it has been improved since the original 
Clinton administration proposal was offered.
  I am supportive of allowing those Central Americans who came to this 
country during the 1980's in order to flee persecution, and other forms 
of danger, to have the opportunity to apply for relief from deportation 
under the suspension of deportation application rules that existed 
prior to the passage of last year's immigration reform bill.
  During the 1980's thousands of our neighbors from El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Nicaragua came to this country to escape civil war. 
These individuals were granted temporary protected status [TPS], and 
were allowed to stay in the United States and work because of the 
foreign policy issues at hand.
  During such time, these Central Americans should have been afforded a 
proper opportunity to have asylum applications processed, but some were 
denied this opportunity. As a result, these individuals, made up of 
Salvadorans and Guatemalans who are sometimes referred to as the 
American Baptist Churches [ABC] case group, were given another 
opportunity to have their asylum cases heard. This group is also 
comprised of Nicaraguans who participated in the Nicaraguan Review 
Program.
  If such asylum applications were denied, the Central Americans were 
to be afforded the opportunity to apply for what is known as suspension 
of deportation. That means that, even if they were denied asylum, but 
could prove that they were persons of good moral character, had been 
living in the United States for 7 years, and could prove that 
deportation would cause extreme hardship to either the immigrant or a 
U.S. citizen or legal immigrant, the Attorney General could suspend the 
alien's deportation.
  However, in the ensuing years, the U.S. asylum system has become so 
backed-up that upward of 240,000 Central Americans' asylum cases have 
not been resolved. As a result, the process for applying for suspension 
of deportation has been delayed as well.
  Many of us argue that these Central Americans should be allowed to go 
through the suspension of deportation process that existed prior to the 
passage of the Immigraton Act of 1996 because most have lived here 
since the 1980's and were led to believe that their claims to asylum, 
or that their pleas to adjust to legal status, would be processed under 
pre-1996 rules.
  The Mack amendment will afford these Central Americans who fled here 
amid civil war and chaos in the 1970's and 1980's a fair chance to show 
that their deportation would cause extreme hardship.
  The Mack amendment has been improved substantially in one critical 
area. Initially, the proposal allowed any individual, not just Central 
Americans, in deportation proceedings as of April 1, 1997, to apply for 
suspension of deportation under the old rules--7 years in U.S., good 
moral character, extreme hardship--instead of the new tougher rules 
under the Immigration Act of 1996. The revised Mack amendment will 
allow those Central Americans, who came here to flee civil strife and 
war in the 1980's, to apply for suspension of deportation under the old 
rules. Individuals who have simply come here illegally will be required 
to apply for suspension of deportation under the new Immigration Act of 
1996 rules. The new rules require such illegal immigrants to prove, 
like the old law, that they are of good moral character. But, in 
addition, they must prove that they have been in the United States 
continuously for 10 years and demonstrate that removal would cause 
extreme and unusual hardship to a U.S. citizen or legal immigrant, but 
not to the illegal immigrant himself.
  The fact that this amendment has been revised to include only Central 
Americans is important--during all of the meetings I have had on this 
issue, and of all of the correspondence I have received, none have 
suggested that any individuals other than those Central Americans who 
fled to the United States in the 1980's should be processed under old 
Immigration Act suspension standards. I am pleased that the Mack 
proposal limits the scope in this area.
  A provision of the Mack amendment that I continue to be concerned 
about concerns a numerical cap included in last year's Immigration Act. 
The Immigration Act of 1996 imposed a cap of 4,000 on the number of 
suspension of deportation cases that can be adjudicated in a given 
year. The Mack proposal removes the numerical cap of 4,000.
  Even though the necessary adjustments have been made to ensure that 
only a specific group of individuals will be allowed to have their 
suspension of deportation cases heard under the old rules, the fact is, 
according to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, approximately 
150,000 Central Americans will actually be adjusting their status to 
permanent legal resident. These additional permanent resident numbers 
should be offset in other areas of legal immigration. During the 
negotiation on this amendment, many of us suggested that we increase 
the number of individuals who will be adjudicated per year from 4,000 
to 14,000, but include these numbers in our annual count of legal 
immigration and ensure, as a result of the addition, that legal 
immigration does not increase. The Mack proposal should be modified to 
reinstate the cap, but at 14,000 annually, with an offset in legal 
immigration that ensures that legal immigration does not increase.
  Another concern I have about the Mack proposal is its silence about 
whether thousands of individuals who entered the country illegally, 
with no connection to any of these formerly war-torn countries, should 
be exempted from one of the new tougher standards against illegal 
immigration in the Immigration Act of 1996. Specifically, the Mack 
amendment is silent on the issue of the N-J-B case. The N-J-B case 
determined that section 309(C)5 of the Immigration Act of 1996 means 
that ``period of continuous residence'' stopped when an alien was 
served with an order to show cause before enactment of the Immigration 
Act of 1996, and that such time stops when an alien is, or was, served 
a notice to appear after enactment of the Immigration Act of 1996. In 
other words, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals has interpreted the 
provision to mean that those aliens applying for suspension of 
deportation cannot

[[Page S10204]]

count as time spent here in the United States that time spent here 
after having received an order. If congressional intent is not clarifed 
in this area, it has been made clear that the Clinton administration 
will seek to administratively overturn the N-J-B decision.
  Legislation introduced by Representative Lamar Smith would clarify 
congressional intent. It provides that the period of time that an 
individual is considered to have been in the United States stops when 
an order to show cause was issued, except for those Guatemalans, 
Salvadorans, and Nicaraguans who fled here during the 1970's and 1980's 
to escape civil strife and persecution. Under the Smith proposal, these 
Central Americans would be allowed to continue to count the time spent 
here in the United States after having received an order to show cause.
  Mr. President, many people are legitimately concerned about the 
effects of the removal of these Central Americans from the United 
States. It is my hope that, as we work toward a D.C. appropriations 
conference report, a modified version of this amendment can be achieved 
to the satisfaction of all interested parties.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________