[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10257-S10262]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 1156, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative 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.
       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 modified amendment No. 1253 (to 
     amendment No. 1252) in the nature of a substitute.


                Amendment No. 1253 to Amendment No. 1252

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from Florida is 
the pending business.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeWine 
be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S10258]]

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, this amendment was offered last Thursday. We 
still have not had one Member come to the floor to speak in opposition 
to it. It has received support from both sides of the aisle and is 
supported by Senator Abraham, the chairman of the authorizing 
subcommittee. It has received positive editorial support from a wide 
array of newspapers, including the Washington Times and the New York 
Times. It has also received the endorsement of Empire America. 
Yesterday I introduced into the Record a letter of support from Jeanne 
Kirkpatrick, Jack Kemp, William Bennett, Lamar Alexander and Steve 
Forbes.
  This is a narrowly targeted amendment which merely ensures that 
Central Americans receive the due process which they were originally 
promised. It is focused on an identifiable group of people and ensures 
their opportunity to apply for suspension of deportation. It is not a 
grant of immunity.
  I have not been able to obtain an up-or-down vote on my amendment, so 
I will be moving to table my own amendment. I will oppose the motion to 
table, and ask for the support of my colleagues in opposing the motion 
to table.
  So, Mr. President, I therefore move to table amendment No. 1253.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to table.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this vote be 
delayed until 12:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased that after almost a week we 
are on the verge of having an expression of the Senate on this 
important issue. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer also be 
added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I ask unanimous consent that a statement by the 
President, which was released on July 25 of this year, at the time the 
administration supported the principles of the Immigration Reform 
Transition Act of 1997, also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  The White House,


                                Office of the Press Secretary,

                                                    July 25, 1997.

                         FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

     To the Congress of the United States:
       I am pleased to submit for your immediate consideration and 
     enactment the ``Immigration Reform Transition Act of 1997,'' 
     which is accompanied by a section-by-section analysis. This 
     legislative proposal is designed to ensure that the complete 
     transition to the new ``cancellation of removal'' (formerly 
     ``suspension of deportation'') provisions of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (IIRIRA; Public Law 104-208) can be accomplished in a fair 
     and equitable manner consistent with our law enforcement 
     needs and foreign policy interests.
       This legislative proposal would aid the transition to 
     IIRIRA's new cancellation of removal rules and prevent the 
     unfairness of applying those rules to cases pending before 
     April 1, 1997, the effective date of the new rules. It would 
     also recognize the special circumstances of certain Central 
     Americans who entered the United States in the 1980s in 
     response to civil war and political persecution. The 
     Nicaraguan Review Program, under successive Administrations 
     from 1985 to 1995, protected roughly 40,000 Nicaraguans from 
     deportation while their cases were under review. During this 
     time the American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh (ABC) 
     litigation resulted in a 1990 court settlement, which 
     protected roughly 190,000 Salvadorans and 50,000 Guatemalans. 
     Other Central Americans have been unable to obtain a decision 
     on their asylum applications for many years. Absent this 
     legislative proposal, many of these individuals would be 
     denied protection from deportation under IIRIRA's new 
     cancellation of removal rules. Such a result would unduly 
     harm stable families and communities here in the United 
     States and undermine our strong interests in facilitating the 
     development of peace and democracy in Central America.
       This legislative proposal would delay the effect of 
     IIRIRA's new provisions so that immigration cases pending 
     before April 1, 1997, will continue to be considered and 
     decided under the old suspension of deportation rules as they 
     existed prior to that date. IIRIRA's new cancellation of 
     removal rules would generally apply to cases commenced on or 
     after April 1, 1997. This proposal dictates no particular 
     outcome of any case. Every application for suspension of 
     deportation or cancellation of removal must still be 
     considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposal simply 
     restores a fair opportunity to those whose cases have long 
     been in the system or have other demonstrable equities.
       In addition to continuing to apply the old standards to old 
     cases, this legislative proposal would exempt such cases from 
     IIRIRA's annual cap of 4,000 cancellations of removal. It 
     would also exempt from the cap cases of battered spouses and 
     children who otherwise receive such cancellation.
       The proposal also guarantees that the cancellation of 
     removal proceedings of certain individuals covered by the 
     1990 ABC litigation settlement and certain other Central 
     Americans with long-pending asylum claims will be governed by 
     the pre-IIRIRA substantive standard of 7 years continuous 
     physical presence and extreme hardship. It would further 
     exempt those same individuals from IIRIRA's cap. Finally, 
     individuals affected by the legislation whose time has lapsed 
     for reopening their cases following a removal order would be 
     granted 180 days in which to do so.
       My Administration is committed to working with the Congress 
     to enact this legislation. If, however, we are unsuccessful 
     in this goal, I am prepared to examine any available 
     administrative options for granting relief to this class of 
     immigrants. These options could include a grant of Deferred 
     Enforced Departure for certain classes of individuals who 
     would qualify for relief from deportation under this 
     legislative proposal. Prompt legislative action on my 
     proposal would ensure a smooth transition to the full 
     implementation of IIRIRA and prevent harsh and avoidable 
     results.
       I urge the Congress to give this legislative proposal 
     prompt and favorable consideration.

                                               William J. Clinton.
       The White House, July 24, 1997.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is an extremely important and urgent 
bill, because the continuation of the 1996 law, with what I will 
describe as its inadvertent retroactive application to this class of 
people, is causing great distress and unnecessary instability in 
communities that are principally affected. As those who participated in 
the press conference earlier today underscored, this is a group of 
people who came here largely at our request. They came here because 
communism had taken over their country. They came here because the 
Soviet Union was establishing a satellite state in our own hemisphere. 
They came here in order to participate in those ultimately successful 
efforts to establish a democratic government in Nicaragua.
  Now for us to change the rules from those that were in place at the 
time we extended that invitation, to have the practical effect of 
denying these people even the opportunity to be heard on their request 
for a permanent residence in the United States, is outrageous and 
inconsistent with basic American principles.
  I underscore what Senator Mack and I have said throughout this 
debate. This is not an amnesty provision. By the passage of this 
legislation, no one automatically has their status in the United States 
altered. What they do have is the right to use the rules that were in 
effect when they came to this country to apply for permanent legal 
status in the United States. I think that is just fair and consistent 
with the relationships that we want to establish with, particularly, 
our neighbors in this hemisphere.
  Mr. President, I applaud my colleague for having asked for this 
tabling motion which, obviously, is not a motion in which he is going 
to urge success, but it is our means of getting an expression of 
opinion by the U.S. Senate on this fundamental issue. I urge defeat of 
the motion to table and then a quick adoption of this amendment. Thank 
you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Mack 
amendment. I, of course, therefore will oppose the motion to table. 
This amendment will ensure that fundamental principles of fairness are 
respected in regard to the cases of some 316,000 immigrants, some of 
them from Central America.
  In the immigration bill Congress passed last year, we changed the 
criteria for suspension of deportation. Certain retroactive changes in 
that bill, at least as they have been interpreted by the INS, had the 
unintended

[[Page S10259]]

effect of applying these new criteria to applications of suspension for 
deportation which were already in the pipeline when the bill was 
passed.
  The Mack amendment will ensure that those immigrants whose cases were 
in the pipeline when the 1996 immigration law took effect will have 
their cases decided according to the criteria in effect at the time 
that the law actually passed. It is only fair that we should not change 
the rules in midstream for these worried immigrants.

  Let me take us back to the 1980's when we granted these 316,000 
Central American immigrants temporary protection from deportation. We 
knew at that time the terrible consequences of war--the grinding 
poverty, human rights abuses that had driven these men, women, and, 
yes, children, to our shores.
  At that time, we told these immigrants that their protection from 
deportation would be permanent if certain conditions were met--that is 
what we told them then--7 years of continuous residency, good behavior, 
proof of extreme hardship awaiting them in their native country. We 
basically said, ``As long as you can prove that, then this will be 
permanent.''
  When Congress changed the law in 1996, we clearly did not intend to 
change the rules for these people who already, at that time, were in 
the pipeline. We, in essence, had made a commitment to them. We, in 
essence, had made a deal with them, and I don't believe we should go 
back on that deal today.
  Mr. President, the Mack amendment would keep faith with these 
individuals. It is not, as my colleagues from Florida have already 
pointed out, an automatic grant of amnesty, nor is it an automatic 
grant of permanent residency. Far from it. It is merely a restoration 
of the original conditions these immigrants have to fulfill if we are 
going to allow them to remain in this country.
  I had the opportunity this morning to participate in a press 
conference concerning this issue. I also had the opportunity a few 
months ago to travel to Nicaragua. I had made several visits to 
Nicaragua in the 1980's, about a decade ago. For me to go back to 
Nicaragua a few months ago was a very pleasant experience, and it was 
pleasant because I had seen where Nicaragua was. I had the opportunity 
a few months ago to see where Nicaragua is today. Yes, it is still the 
second-poorest country in this hemisphere and, yes, there is high 
unemployment and, yes, there are many, many problems. But what we see 
in Nicaragua today is a fledgling democracy. We see a country that is 
becoming what we envisioned and had hoped for and worked for in the 
1980's, and that is a democracy.
  Today, for the first time in history, all five Central American 
countries are democratic; all five are working to bring about the 
reforms that truly are an example of democracy.
  When I traveled to Nicaragua, I had the opportunity to speak with 
then President-elect, now President Aleman and talked to him about his 
vision for his country.
  One of the unintended consequences of the bill we passed in 1996, and 
one of the unintended consequences of the deportation of these 316,000 
immigrants would be that we would strike a hard blow against democracy 
in Nicaragua and El Salvador and the other Central American countries. 
Anyone who has looked at these countries today understands what an 
economic impact and political impact it would have if all these 
citizens, all of these individuals were instantly returned to their 
native countries.
  The ability to absorb these individuals simply does not exist. It 
does not exist from an economic point of view. Further, this would take 
away a major source, frankly, of income to these countries, a major 
source of help to the economy, not United States foreign aid, but 
rather the remittances that are sent back by Nicaraguans who are living 
in the United States. Those remittances are a major contribution to the 
Nicaraguan economy today. To take that away, I think, would have a very 
severe and devastating blow to the economy of Nicaragua and the economy 
of the other Central American countries.
  That is not the principal reason to support the Mack amendment, but 
it is a fact, and it is a fact of life.
  The central reason to support the Mack amendment is what has been 
stated on this floor by Senator Mack on several occasions, as well as 
Senator Graham, and that simply is this is a matter of equity, it is a 
matter of fairness, it is a matter of keeping our word, and it is a 
matter of doing what is right.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mack amendment and, therefore, 
vote against the motion to table the Mack amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.


                           amendment No. 1249

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we had, I think, a very constructive debate 
on the school choice issue, scholarships for D.C. children. 
Unfortunately, while having obtained a majority vote in support of at 
least a test of a program to provide some educational opportunities to 
D.C. children, we were not able to break a procedural vote of 60 
necessary to move forward with this legislation. That limited our 
options considerably. While Senator Lieberman and I were pleased with 
the fact that we received more votes than we ever have on this issue, 
we were still two short of the necessary number to break the promised 
filibuster on this, and that limits our options.
  Mr. President, this is an issue that is not going away. I have always 
said this is not something that will be legislated from the top down in 
Congress but will be a grassroots movement from parents and PTA's and 
administrators and educators and others throughout America who are 
demanding better education for their children. Unfortunately, in many 
instances, they are not finding it in some of their public schools.
  This is not a condemnation of the public school system. There are 
many fine public schools across this country. There are dedicated 
teachers, dedicated administrators, schools that are providing 
opportunities for their young people.
  I am a product of the public schools, as is my wife. Our children are 
products of public schools, and we have found schools that have 
provided a sound education for our children.
  Unfortunately, there are people in this country who don't have the 
options that we have had, who don't have the options that those of 
means have in terms of where they live, the school systems they choose 
to support, to be a part of and options that, should they find 
themselves in the situation where they are living that their public 
schools are not providing the education their children need or a school 
that has such a high incidence of violence and crime and other problems 
that they don't feel their children are safe there, they don't have the 
option that many of us have of transferring their student to a private 
school or another school outside the system or moving to an area where 
they can receive the kind of education they want their children to 
receive.
  There is a very interesting story this morning in the Washington 
Post: ``Popularity Grows for Alternatives to Public School. Some 
Districts Reacting to Threat of Competition.''
  The whole point we were trying to make yesterday is that we are not 
trying to undo the public school system. We are trying to provide 
options and alternatives for parents who are trapped in those public 
schools. But, by the same token, we hope that the competitive pressure 
will shake them out of their lethargy and cause them to bring about the 
changes and reforms necessary to make them viable once again.
  In quoting from the Post, an article by Rene Sanchez, it says:

       In a movement flustering schools across the nation, more 
     parents than ever are choosing alternatives to public 
     education for their children, so much that what once seemed 
     only a fad to many educators is instead starting to resemble 
     a revolution.
       Charter schools are expanding at breakneck pace. Religious 
     schools are overflowing with new students. Home schooling is 
     attracting unprecedented numbers of parents who only a few 
     years ago would never have dreamed of teaching their own 
     children.
       Those migrating from public education say the roots of 
     their disenchantment vary. Some parents are frustrated with 
     bureaucracy, others fear student violence. Some want their 
     children to spend more time learning values, others call the 
     one-size-fits-all model of most large public schools an 
     ineffective and impersonal way to learn.
     
                                *   *   *   *   *


[[Page S10260]]


       But today those trends have begun to send a powerful 
     message to public schools, even prompting some of them to 
     acknowledge a threat of competition for the first time.

  Our system is built on competition. We pride ourselves in America as 
producing the best product at the best price because of competitive 
pressures that force us to do better, that force us to make better 
products at lower cost, that force us to respond to someone else who is 
attempting to accomplish the same goal and might have found a better 
way to do it. It is that that has made this such a dynamic economy, one 
that employs so many people gainfully, and one that provides such a 
quality of living for so many Americans. That is the American way.
  That system works everywhere except where there is a public monopoly, 
a State-run government public monopoly. That public monopoly has 
existed in public schools for far too long in far too many places. 
There are vigorous private school and parochial school options 
available in many parts of this country, but they are, sadly, lacking 
in some of the areas where they are needed the most.
  But more than that, the problem is not lack of alternatives. The 
problem has been a system which leaves the lowest income and frequently 
the minority students of this country living in our urban areas with 
only one choice. And that choice, unfortunately, has been a failed 
public school. They have been denied opportunities to gain skills to 
enter the workplace. They have been denied opportunities to receive an 
education that qualifies them to go on to college or university 
education. They, therefore, are trapped, trapped in a system, a system 
which says, ``We will do anything we can to maintain the status quo, 
and yet at the same time we will prevent you from an alternative by 
blocking any attempts to provide scholarships or vouchers or stipends 
or support to assist you in paying the tuition if you choose to move 
from a public school.''
  We had that debate yesterday. It was a very instructive debate. I 
thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. It is 
bipartisan obviously, Democrat and Republican, one from Connecticut, 
one from Indiana, joining forces. I appreciate the support we had from 
a few of our Democratic colleagues across the aisle. Unfortunately, we 
did not get enough to move on with this.
  But there is a revolution going on in public education. It is a 
healthy one. It is a healthy one because parents are suddenly rising up 
and saying: We will not accept the platitudes and the promises that 
come from the public school system when now 15 years after the report 
``A Nation At Risk'', 15 years later, essentially, we see no dramatic 
changes or no effective changes in many of our public schools. We will 
not accept any longer the promises of a system which cannot overcome 
its inertia and its bureaucracy, which cannot direct a majority of its 
funds to educating students but yet eats up a majority of those funds 
or a very substantial portion of those funds in administrative costs.
  So this issue will be back. It will be back over and over again, and 
it will arise not because two Senators chose to offer an amendment to 
the D.C. appropriations bill; it will arise because constituents of 
Members throughout the country will demand in town meetings and in 
letters and in calls to their Congressmen and Senators, will demand 
opportunities and alternatives. No longer will inner-city poor parents, 
welfare parents and others living at or near the poverty line, allow 
their children to be condemned to a lifetime of inability to succeed 
because of the failure of the public school system to provide their 
children with an education.

  They will demand that their Congressmen and their Senators provide 
opportunities, that their councilmen and their mayors and their school 
systems either provide a sound education for their children or give 
them the opportunity to seek that elsewhere. What parent would not do 
that? What parent in this Senate body would not do that? We all would 
because we have that choice. Minority children in many cases do not 
have that choice.
  Mr. President, I would like to say just one more thing before I yield 
the floor. There was another quote in the Washington Post this morning 
in an article covering this particular issue. That quote was a 
disturbing one. There are boundaries to public discourse. There are 
boundaries that we all try to live by, boundaries of civility and 
honesty and good taste. When those limits are violated, it undermines 
this institution and it makes democracy more difficult.
  I think deep disagreements are possible without bitterness. I have 
done my best to conduct my debates, including this school choice 
debate, in that spirit. But today in the Washington Post a quote was 
attributed to the Senator from Massachusetts. The Post has misquoted me 
in the past, and I sincerely hope that they have misquoted the Senator 
from Massachusetts. That quote reads:

       Kennedy reminded Republicans that ``D.C. is not a test tube 
     for misguided Republican ideological experiments on 
     education. . ..Republicans in Congress should stop acting 
     like plantation masters and start treating the people of D.C. 
     with the respect they deserve.''

  Mr. President, this is not just a racially offensive, irresponsible 
charge; it is the total inversion of reality. It is the opponents of 
school choice who want to require, compel, force minority children to 
remain in substandard schools. It is the opponents of school choice who 
want to confine poor minority children within the four walls of failed 
institutions, and sometimes just the four walls because the roofs are 
in disrepair.
  Despite the infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars into this 
system, much of it is wasted irresponsibly in not providing either 
buildings or education to the children of the District of Columbia.
  If there is a plantation here, it is a paternalistic plantation of 
those who somehow justify restricting the choices and options of poor 
children as a defense of their civil rights. As Alveda King said in 
room 207 just off the Senate floor here a week ago: One of the greatest 
civil rights issues for minority people today and for African-Americans 
is those who deny young black children the opportunity to receive an 
education. That condemns them, because of their income, because of 
where they live geographically, to a failed public school that fails to 
educate their children and condemns them to a lifetime of failure.
  Let me suggest how we can respect the people of the District. We can 
respect them to make good choices in the interests of their children. 
We can respect them enough to give them options other than coercive 
assignment to failed and dangerous schools. We can respect them with 
resources, not with more lip service, platitudes, or promises. We can 
respect the right of a parent, the knowledge of a parent, the caring of 
a parent to make wise decisions for their children without the 
paternalistic attitude that only Congress or only bureaucrats, only the 
State, or only Government knows what is best for our children. This 
charge that supporters of school choice are plantation masters is 
deceptive and it is racist and it is hypocritical.

  It is time for all of us, liberals and conservatives, to search our 
conscience. There are Members of this body who voted against 
scholarships for African-American children whose families have not 
darkened the door of public schools for generations. There are Members 
of the administration and this body, hours after those scholarships 
were defeated, who attended back-to-school night at Sidwell Friends, a 
school safe from leaking roofs and commonplace violence and failed 
education that prevails in so much of the District's public schools.
  Does not anyone see the irony, does not anyone see the hypocrisy, 
does not anyone see the injustice in all of this?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


         Amendments Nos. 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, and 1276

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I send a series of managers' amendments 
to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Boxer and ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc and further ask unanimous 
consent that the reading of these amendments be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

[[Page S10261]]

  Mrs. BOXER. These amendments have been cleared on this side, and I 
ask for their immediate adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], for 
     himself and Mrs. Boxer, proposes en bloc amendments numbered 
     1271 through 1273.
       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], for Mr. 
     Brownback, proposes an amendment numbered 1274.
       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for Mr. Moynihan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1275.
       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1276.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1271

(Purpose: A technical amendment on the part of the manager of the bill)

       On page 3, line 9, after ``facilities,'' insert the 
     following: ``and for the administrative operating costs of 
     the Office of the Corrections Trustee,''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 1272

                (Purpose: To make a technical amendment)

       On page 4, line 4 and 5, strike ``Administrative Office of 
     the United States Courts'' and insert ``District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority''.
       On page 4, lines 15 and 16, strike ``Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts'' and insert ``District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 1273

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate supporting the management 
    teams and management reform plans authorized in the District of 
                Columbia Management Reform Act of 1997)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . It is the sense of the Senate that the management 
     teams authorized in the District of Columbia Management 
     Reform Act of 1997 should--
       (1) take whatever steps are deemed necessary to identify 
     the structural, operational, administrative, and other 
     problems within the designated departments; and
       (2) implement the management reform plans in accordance 
     with the provisions of the District of Columbia Management 
     Reform Act of 1997.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 1274

  (Purpose: To ensure the effectiveness of the charter school program)

       On page 9, line 17, strike ``$1,235,000'' and all that 
     follows through ``134);'' on line 24 and insert ``$3,376,000 
     from local funds (not including funds already made available 
     for District of Columbia public schools) for public charter 
     schools: Provided, That if the entirety of this allocation 
     has not been provided as payments to any public charter 
     schools currently in operation through the per pupil funding 
     formula, the funds shall be available for new public charter 
     schools on a per pupil basis: Provided further, That $400,000 
     be available to the District of Columbia Public Charter 
     School Board for administrative costs: Provided further, That 
     if the entirety of this allocation has not been provided as 
     payment to 1 or more public charter schools by May 1, 1998, 
     and remains unallocated, the funds shall be deposited into a 
     special revolving loan fund to be used solely to assist 
     existing or new public charter schools in meeting startup and 
     operating costs: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia Education Emergency Board of Trustees shall report 
     to Congress not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act on the capital needs of each public 
     charter school and whether the current per pupil funding 
     formula should reflect these needs: Provided further, That 
     until the District of Columbia Education Emergency Board of 
     Trustees reports to Congress as provided in the preceding 
     proviso, the District of Columbia Education Emergency Board 
     of Trustees shall take appropriate steps to provide public 
     charter schools with assistance to meet all capital expenses 
     in a manner that is equitable with respect assistance 
     provided to other District of Columbia public schools: 
     Provided further, That the District of Columbia Education 
     Emergency Board of Trustees shall report to Congress not 
     later than November 1, 1998, on the implementation of their 
     policy to give preference to newly created District of 
     Columbia public charter schools for surplus public school 
     property;''.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the 
District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee for including the 
Brownback-Lieberman-Coats D.C. charter school amendment in the 
manager's amendment. I am also pleased that our amendment has 
bipartisan support. These charter school provisions are critical to 
ensure the success of charter schools in the District. Here in the 
Nation's Capital, unfortunately, the progress of creating charter 
schools has been slow. Legislation to create charter schools in the 
District was enacted in the last Congress but the District currently 
only has two charter schools.
  I, along with the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, 
Senator Lieberman, had the opportunity to visit one of these charter 
schools. The Options Public Charter School, which is just a few blocks 
from Capitol Hill, is the perfect example of the innovative approach 
charter schools bring to public education. It enrolls about 100 of the 
D.C. public schools most at-risk students, grades 5 to 8, and works 
closely with each student. As a result of this charter school 
education, the high school graduation rate for the Options Public 
Charter School is 75 percent compared to the approximate 50 percent 
graduation rate in the D.C. public schools.
  To make sure the D.C. public charter school system follows the 
success of the Options Public Charter School and continues to grow, I, 
along with Senator Lieberman and Senator Coats offered an amendment to 
expand funding for the D.C. public charter schools from $1,235,000 to 
$3,376,000 to ensure that current and future charter schools have 
adequate funding. In fiscal year 1998, the District of Columbia could 
have as many as 20 new charter schools. The $1.2 million appropriation 
is based on the budget of the two current charter schools. This 
amendment would also make sure there is sufficient funding for current 
public schools which would like to convert to a charter school.
  Our amendment would also require the D.C. education emergency board 
of trustees to report to Congress on their implementation of policy 
providing preference to new charter schools for surplus D.C. public 
school property. It would also establish a revolving fund for D.C. 
charter schools for funds not spent by May 1, 1997. Under the current 
legislation, any remaining funds for charter schools must go into the 
D.C. general fund by May 1, 1997. This provision in the amendment would 
simply make sure that any funds appropriated for the D.C. charter 
schools will only be spent on the D.C. charter schools. In addition, 
the D.C. education emergency board of trustees would be required to 
report to Congress on the capital needs of each charter school within 
120 days of enactment and to take all possible steps to provide 
assistance in capital costs for charter schools in the meantime.
  I am pleased that our amendment is included in the manager's 
amendment and has the support of our Democratic colleagues. The charter 
school application process is underway in the District and new charter 
schools could begin to operate as early as January. Out goal is to make 
the Nation's Capital a shining city for the world to follow. One of the 
key elements of achieving this goal is to provide high quality 
education for the District's children. Charter schools in the District 
will inject accountability into D.C. public education, more options for 
parents and, most important, high quality education to the District's 
children.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1275

   (Purpose: To designate the year 2000 as the Year of the National 
   Bicentennial Celebration for Washington, DC--the Nation's Capital)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . NATION'S CAPITAL BICENTENNIAL DESIGNATION ACT.

       (a) Short Title; Findings; Purpose.--
       (1) Short title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Nation's Capital Bicentennial Designation Act''.
       (2) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (A) the year 2000 will make the 200th anniversary of 
     Washington, D.C. as the Nation's permanent capital, 
     commencing when the Government moved from Philadelphia to the 
     Federal City;
       (B) the framers of the Constitution provided for the 
     establishment of a special district to serve as ``the seat of 
     Government of the United States'';
       (C) the site for the city was selected under the direction 
     of President George Washington, with construction initiated 
     in 1791;
       (D) in submitting his design to Congress, Major Pierre 
     Charles L'Enfant included numerous parks, fountains, and 
     sweeping avenues designed to reflect a vision as grand and as 
     ambitious as the American experience itself;
       (E) the capital city was named after President George 
     Washington to commemorate and celebrate his triumph in 
     building the Nation;
       (F) as the seat of Government of the United States for 
     almost 200 years, the Nation's capital has been a center of 
     American culture and a world symbol of freedom and democracy;

[[Page S10262]]

       (G) from Washington, D.C., President Abraham Lincoln 
     labored to preserve the Union and the Reverend Martin Luther 
     King, Jr. led an historic march that energized the civil 
     rights movement, reminding America of its promise of liberty 
     and justice for all; and
       (H) The Government of the United States must continually 
     work to ensure that the Nation's capital is and remains the 
     shining city on the hill.
       (3) Purpose.--The purposes of this section are to--
       (A) designate the year 2000 as the ``Year of National 
     Bicentennial Celebration for Washington, D.C.--the Nation's 
     Capital''; and
       (B) establish the Presidents' Day holiday in the year 2000 
     as a day of national celebration for the 200th anniversary of 
     Washington, D.C.
       (b) Nation's Capital National Bicentennial.--
       (1) In general.--The year 2000 is designated as the ``Year 
     of the National Bicentennial Celebration for Washington, 
     D.C.--the Nation's Capital'' and the Presidents' Day Federal 
     holiday in the year 2000 is designated as a day of national 
     celebration for the 200th anniversary of Washington, D.C.
       (2) Sense of the senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that all Federal entities should coordinate with and assist 
     the Nation's Capital Bicentennial Celebration, a nonprofit 
     501(c)(3) entity, organized and operating pursuant to the 
     laws of the District of Columbia, to ensure the success of 
     events and projects undertaken to renew and celebrate the 
     bicentennial of the establishment of Washington, D.C. as the 
     Nation's capital.
                                                                    ____



                           Amendment No. 1276

   (Purpose: To establish a remedial education pilot program in the 
    District of Columbia in the District of Columbia public schools)

       On page 49, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       Sec. 148. $4,000,000 from local funds shall be available 
     for the establishment of a remedial education pilot program 
     in the District of Columbia public school system to remain 
     available through fiscal year 1999, of which $3,000,000 shall 
     be used to create a one-year pilot program for the 
     implementation of a remedial education program in reading and 
     mathematics for the 3 lowest achieving elementary schools in 
     the District of Columbia public school system (as to be 
     determined by the District of Columbia public school system's 
     Board of Education) and the training of teachers in 
     remediation instruction at the targeted schools and 
     $1,000,000 shall be used to establish a continuing education 
     program for all teachers in the District of Columbia public 
     school system. The General Accounting Office shall report to 
     Congress on the effectiveness of the pilot program funded by 
     this section at the end of fiscal year 1999.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, and 1276) en bloc 
were agreed to.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote scheduled 
at 12:15 now occur at 12:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. For the interest of all Members, there has been a meeting 
at the White House that went a little over time and there are a number 
of Members involved. They will be here by 12:30, so the vote will be at 
12:30.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. 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. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business, notwithstanding the upcoming vote, for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________