[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 143 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8934-H8938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 269 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 269
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 97) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and for other
purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered as read
for amendment. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from South
Boston, MA [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking minority member of
the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and to include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order House Joint
Resolution 97, which makes further appropriations for fiscal year 1998.
It is a closed rule providing 1 hour of debate in the House, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations.
The continuing resolution made in order by this rule is very simple
and noncontroversial. It simply extends until November 7, funding for
those agencies and programs that have not received permanent
appropriations on the terms and conditions imposed by the previously
adopted continuing resolution, which as we all know, expires tomorrow.
As we all know, approval of this continuing resolution is necessary
to prevent a Government shutdown since only 5 of the 13 appropriations
bills have been signed into law, although 2 more are pending
Presidential action right now. Hopefully, by November 7, differences
over the remaining appropriations bills can be resolved, and the
Government will be operating under more normal conditions.
I also know that a number of my colleagues are troubled that the
continuing resolution extends section 245(I) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
{time} 1030
I share their concern that in its current state section 245(I) may
continue to encourage illegal immigration, although it is not the
source of our illegal immigration program, and I am not convinced that
allowing it to totally expire is the right solution. The issue needs to
be resolved, preferably through compromise language that both opponents
and proponents of the law can agree on.
My Committee on Rules colleague, the gentleman from Sanibel Island,
FL, [Mr. Goss], has a thoughtful solution, and I hope it will be part
of any discussions we have. Our Republican leadership is also working
with both sides to resolve the differences.
But this rule, and the continuing resolution it makes in order, are
not the appropriate vehicles for settling this dispute. It is totally
appropriate to grant section 245(I) a 2-week extension because this and
other issues pertaining to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations
bill are still being addressed in conference with the Senate.
Let us debate section 245(I) and all of the other differences that
have yet to be resolved, but let us do it at the appropriate time and
the appropriate place.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank my very dear friend, my colleague, the gentleman from
California, Mr. David Dreier, for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, we are doing the second continuing resolution because,
despite the late date, despite the President's very clear decisions, my
Republican colleagues still have not done their job and they still
insist on playing politics.
The 13 appropriation bills should have been sent to the President for
signature 3 weeks ago, but 4 of them are being stalled because my more
radical Republican colleagues insist on attaching very controversial
provisions to these bills. And as far as the President is concerned,
those partisan provisions just beg his veto.
Mr. Speaker, the Government shutdown looming on the horizon may sound
very familiar to us. Last Congress, when my Republican colleagues
picked politics over pragmatism, they closed the Federal Government
several times to the tune of hundreds of millions of wasted tax
dollars.
For the sake of veterans and for the sake of Social Security
recipients, Mr.
[[Page H8935]]
Speaker, I hope they are not planning to do that again. But, Mr.
Speaker, it is sure starting to look that way.
Today's temporary funding bill will keep the Government from shutting
down for another week. We need this bill, Mr. Speaker, because my
Republican colleagues have refused to pass the rest of the
appropriation bills. Some Members, unbelievable as it may sound, some
Members would rather watch these appropriation bills go down in flames
rather than work with President Clinton and their Democratic colleagues
to make sure they become law.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are using the
Commerce, Justice, State appropriation bill to stop the Census Bureau
from using a technique called sampling, which most experts agree will
give us a more accurate census count. But that accuracy, Mr. Speaker,
will come mostly from improved counts of people in inner cities and
rural areas, and as far as my Republican colleagues are concerned,
those people are better off not counted because their presence might
hurt Republicans at the polls.
My Republican colleagues are also forcing a showdown on President
Clinton's national education standards. President Clinton is hoping to
set standards for fourth grade reading and eighth grade math, but my
Republican colleagues just do not agree with him. And over that issue,
and over that issue alone, the Labor, Health and Human Services
appropriation bill may never see the light of day.
On a better note, Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleagues have included
the extension of section 245(I) of the Immigration and Naturalization
Act in this continuing resolution. This provision will allow immigrants
the opportunity to stay in this country while their applications are
being processed. And those are only the immigrants that are eligible
for citizenship. Mr. Speaker, these people are hard working. They have
families here, and we should not be uprooting them from their families
and jobs while they are waiting in line, legally, to become citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this provision does not stop with the continuing
resolution. I hope it will be permanently extended when we take up the
Commerce, Justice, State appropriation conference report, if we take it
up at all.
So Mr. Speaker, despite my opposition to the choice of politics over
substance, I will support the continuing resolution. The American
people deserve a government that is open for business, no matter how
childish we get here in Washington, and I urge my colleagues to support
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Huntington Beach, CA, [Mr. Rohrabacher], my very good friend with whom
I have worked closely on a wide-range of issues, including the problem
of illegal immigration.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier]. He and I have worked on a number of issues over the years
and we have a close relationship, but I might add the issue I will be
talking about today is a bipartisan issue that crosses both sides of
the aisle.
I had been planning to oppose this rule. I had been planning to stand
up today and ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this continuing
resolution because it included in it a provision which would grant
amnesty to 500,000 to 1 million illegal aliens who are currently
residing in the United States of America.
That issue is a significant issue. It is something that I did not
receive an agreement on until just a few moments ago, that there would
be an up and down vote other than on this rule. So today, while not
opposing the rule, I am announcing to my colleagues and to those people
who are listening that there will be an up and down vote.
The reason why we will not be opposing this rule is that there will
be an up and down vote on 245(I) next Wednesday in the form of a motion
to instruct conferees on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriation
bill to insist on the House's, that means this body's, disagreement
with the Senate's permanent extension of 245(I).
Now, we all know in the House a motion to instruct conferees is not a
binding motion. It does not actually secure the change in law that we
are trying to gain. But if we win that vote, we then have been assured
by the leadership that there will be a binding vote in this body on the
issue of 245(I). So between now and Wednesday this issue of 245(I) will
be discussed.
Just a preview of how much I disagree with my good friend, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] on this issue, is that we
passed an illegal immigration reform bill last year with the intent of
restoring respect for America's immigration law. By taking half a
million to a million people who are in this country illegally, and
permitting them to stay in this country for $1,000, we are breaking
down the respect for our immigration law that we attempted to build
last year in our immigration reform bill. It is totally contrary to
that process.
What we are talking about is an amnesty, a new amnesty for 500,000 to
1 million illegal immigrants. I strongly oppose that. It is in the
Senate's bill already, in their Commerce, State, and Justice
appropriation bill. Again, this provision has been snuck into law. We
will have a chance to vote on it.
There has only been one vote in the Congress of the United States on
the issue of 245(I). That vote was a resounding no. And then 3 years
ago it was, instead, snuck into another larger piece of legislation
without a vote for even a conference report, that was not voted on by
either the House or the Senate. So the only vote that we have ever had
on 245(I) has been against it.
We owe it to the American people not to have a policy in place that
is so controversial and so contrary, actually contrary to the wishes
and contrary to the interests of American citizens and legal immigrants
into our country, without having a direct vote in the House. We have
now been guaranteed that there will be an up and down vote. The first
vote on this will be Wednesday on the motion to instruct conferees. And
if we win that, there will be a binding vote.
So I will be supporting this rule and ask my colleagues to join me
and look forward to the debate on this issue next week.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to including
the provision on section 245(i) to extend amnesty to Illegals.
Although, I accept the public commitment made by the House leadership
on allowing an up or down vote on this issue next week. I stand with
our colleague Representative Rohrabacher on this commitment to an up or
down vote. When that vote comes, I urge my colleagues to vote against
any extension.
Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act should not
be extended. This rewards illegal immigrants who knowingly violated the
law and permits them to remain in the United States and gain permanent
status.
What message does this send to people around the world? It tells them
that they are better off to break the law than to follow it. It sends
the wrong message to law-abiding people in other countries who have
legally applied for entry into the United States while remaining in
their homelands for their visas to become available. It tells them to
come to this country illegally and then adjust the residence status.
Section 245(i) inundates the INS another endless set of applications,
further creating a backlog to delay conducting background checks and
investigating fraudulent applications.
I am concerned today that our benefits system acts as a magnet for
many illegal immigrants. For example, many children of illegal
immigrants receive a free education in U.S. public schools at the
expense of American taxpayers, driving up the cost of education and
taking resources away from U.S. children. The State of New Jersey alone
spends an estimated $146 million a year to educate about 16,000
children of illegal aliens.
The argument has been made that by allowing section 245(i) to stay on
the books, the INS makes up to $125 million in revenue received from
the $1,000 fee that aliens pay to obtain legal status. But, this money
pales in comparison to the multi-billion dollar cost imposed on
taxpayers as a result of the devastating consequences of illegal
immigration.
The cost associated with providing Federal benefits to illegal
immigrants is astronomical. While as a society, we should not turn
people away from an emergency room or deny food to the hungry; but I do
not believe we should reward illegal immigrants by allowing them to
stay. While millions of others wait their turn in line, year after year
to enter legally.
Although I understand that there are extenuating circumstances in
some cases, I believe that anyone who is in the country illegally
should be held to the letter of the law.
[[Page H8936]]
I urge my colleagues not to support any extension of section 245(i)
and to vote against any extension at the appropriate time next week.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from greater metropolitan
downtown San Dimas, CA, the distinguished vice chairman of the
Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise to support his
rule.
By allowing the House to consider this 2-week extension of the
existing continuing resolution, this rule helps to ensure that current
government functions remain operational while the Congress completes
the work on next year's funding measures. We all know that and we all
know why we are doing this.
Mr. Speaker, we will hear much discussion today of one provision of
the law that is still very highly controversial and that may be
extended for 2 weeks under this CR. I oppose a long-term extension of
that provision of the immigration law, known as section 245(I), which
has been discussed already this morning, which allows aliens who are in
this country illegally to pay a fee and then adjust to permanent legal
resident status.
This provision was, in fact, slipped into permanent law 3 years ago
without hearings, without public discussion, or without debate on this
floor. That is not the way laws should be made.
As part of the immigration reform of the 104th Congress, section
245(I) was set to expire on September 30. In other words, we had a
phaseout of that provision, to be fair to all people who were put on
notice. However, Congress extended the deadline for 3 weeks in the
first continuing resolution this year to allow time for Members and the
public to consider ramifications.
As that discussion is still continuing without resolution, the second
CR includes another brief extension. I will support this one last
extension in the hopes that a consensus can be achieved, and I believe
it can. But I will not support a blanket extension, and I urge the
House leadership to set aside time for full debate and vote on this
issue.
In my view, indefinitely extending the 245(I) provision flies in the
face of the reforms we passed last year by negating the consequences of
illegally entering the United States. A permanent extension would
further damage the credibility of our immigration system, which has for
too long had its priorities reversed. For years, illegal immigration
has been quick, while following the rules has been a slow and difficult
process. Those who did it right, paid a penalty; those who did it
wrong, got the rewards. That is backward.
In addition, a permanent extension would perpetuate an inherent
conflict of interest for the INS, which is both tasked with deporting
illegal aliens and requiring to process these people for legal
residency. That is a tough decision for them.
While it seems there is no obvious middle ground, I have a proposal,
which I understand the distinguished ranking member has spoken to
already, to mitigate the impact on children under 18, who rely on
section 245(I) to become legal permanent residents. In other words,
reduce the impact on the families, which is a major concern for those
of us in congressional offices who have been hearing about this.
{time} 1045
This proposal would grandfather in minors already present in the
United States and who have approved pending petitions. But it would not
contradict the reforms we enacted last year. This is an important
debate and there are many issues involved. We simply cannot have a
policy that tells people who have abided by the lawful, established
procedures that they would have been better off to simply have come
across the border illegally or to ignore our laws. That is not good
governance, it is not what the people of this country are asking us to
do. I urge support for this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Del
Mar, CA [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way said that it
is not amnesty. It allows illegals to remain in this country. That is
amnesty. I do not care what semantics are, but it allows them to stay
here and we are opposed to that. If you are here illegally, if you come
into the United States illegally, we will legally deport you to
whatever country of origin that you have, and that is our position.
That is what we are sticking to.
I would also say to the gentleman when he talks about extreme
Republicans that cause the President to veto bills, we passed Medicare
over to the President. It was vetoed. The DNC through the unions and
the White House, thousands of negative ads on the Medicare, and the
Government shut down. It is the same Medicare bill that was passed in
the balanced budget, but there are still extremists on the other side
that do not want the Medicare reform. The same was true with the
welfare reform, vetoed, and Government shut down, but yet welfare
reform untraps people and we passed that.
I would also look at direct lending. The President wanted 100 percent
of direct student loans in 1 year capped at 10 percent. It cost $7
billion annually more through the President's direct lending. But that
was a pet program, so the Government shut down and the President said,
``We're not going to let the Government go until the extremists allow
me to have 100 percent of the direct loans.'' There was a negotiation.
Forty percent went forward. In 1 year, they could not account, the
Department of Education, for $50 million, and we said, ``That's
wrong.'' Also capped at 10 percent, $7 billion additionally a year.
What happened with the 40 percent? We just so happened to put it in
where you cannot grow the bureaucracy. We saved $10 billion. We
increased IDEA, we increased Pell grants to the highest level ever. And
you call those extremist ideas, but you want to keep adding big
Government, you want big bureaucracy. It takes higher taxes to go
forward and support it. We are not going to allow that to happen.
When you talk about a rule that allows illegals to stay in, that is
also not an extreme position. Legals, yes. Illegals, no. I will support
this rule. I had planned like the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher] on Friday to vote against the rule because of 245(i). But
I would also say to my colleague on the other side, for whom I have a
lot of respect, when they want to get up and demagogue about the
misinformation of the left, 100,000 cops. There are not 100,000 cops
out there. You know it and I know it. But yet you say it over and over.
When the DNC fights Medicare and welfare reform and a balanced budget
was vetoed twice by the President and then comes forward and supports
it, yes. But do not call us extremists for a balanced budget, for
welfare reform and tax relief for the American people.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again I cannot let Members use the term ``amnesty.'' ``Amnesty'' is a
definite term used in immigration. One-week, 2-week extension of
deportation is not amnesty. I would hope that people would just use
that term the way it is meant to be used.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As has been pointed out on both sides, this is a very simple, clean
continuing resolution which allows us to ensure that the government
will not shut down. Yes, it does have that 2-week extension of 245(i).
The main reason it does is that we are in the process of working on
negotiations.
The gentleman from Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has just walked onto
the floor and he is in the midst of working on those, along with others
who feel very strongly about addressing this issue. The gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has said that we will have a vote next
Wednesday on the floor. So the issue is, in fact, moot at this
juncture. We should support this rule and support the continuing
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
[[Page H8937]]
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 269, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 97) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1998, and for other purposes, and
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of House Joint Resolution 97 is as follows:
H.J. Res. 97
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section
106(3) of Public Law 105-46 is amended by striking ``October
23, 1997'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``November 7,
1997'', and each provision amended by sections 118, 122, and
123 of such public law shall be applied as if ``November 7,
1997'' was substituted for ``October 23, 1997''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Snowbarger]. Pursuant to House
Resolution 269, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
General Leave
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on House Joint Resolution 97 and that I might include tabular
and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the initial fiscal year 1998 continuing
resolution expires tomorrow night. Currently 5 of the 13 appropriations
bills have been enacted into law and 2 others are pending at the White
House. We have concluded conference on one additional bill which is
pending in the Senate, leaving five left to finish in the House.
Because these remaining bills will not be completed by tomorrow night,
it is necessary now to proceed with an extension of the current short-
term continuing resolution so that government can continue to operate
while we finish our work.
The joint resolution now before the House merely extends the
provisions of the initial continuing resolution until November 7. The
basic funding rate would continue to be the current rate. We retain the
provisions that lower or restrict those current rates that might be at
too high a level and would therefore impinge on final funding levels.
Also, the traditional restrictions such as no new starts and 1997 terms
and conditions are retained. The expiration date of November 7 should
give us time to complete our work.
Mr. Speaker, while I am disappointed that we have to be here asking
for another extension of the current continuing resolution, this is the
right kind of action that we should be taking under these
circumstances. It will be signed, and I hope that we can get on with
completing our work by the end of this proposed continuing resolution.
I urge the adoption of the joint resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no reason for this continuing
resolution to be here and for that matter there is absolutely no reason
for this Congress to continue to be in session. To the best of my
understanding, we are continuing to be in session past the leadership's
original target date for adjournment for two reasons.
One, there appears to be a Senate Republican Campaign Committee
dinner with a fundraising target of $5 million which is to take place
on November 5 or 6, and I guess certain folks would like to keep the
Congress around for that so there is good attendance at that dinner.
The second reason is because there are essentially four issues
remaining on four appropriation bills which reasonable people ought to
be able to resolve and which if left to this committee could be
resolved within a week. There is no reason whatsoever why appropriation
bills could not be finished yet this week or certainly early next if
this committee were allowed to do its work on appropriation items. But
we have four issues which are still hanging out there. Until somebody
at a higher level than the committee decides which way this boat is
going to go, we are going to be continuing to go in circles.
Virtually nothing has happened since we passed the last CR with the
exception, I believe, of one or two noncontroversial appropriation
bills. But we are still being held up on the issue of education
testing. It would seem to me reasonable people could come to a
compromise on that agreement. We are still being held up on Mexico City
policy because the right-to-life folks in the Republican caucus will
brook no compromise whatsoever and some of the population groups on the
other side of the issue will also brook no compromise whatsoever.
Again, it seems if this House is willing to take back its duty and do
what it thinks right rather than listening to outside lobby groups,
this Mexico City issue could be resolved in about 5 minutes.
On the District of Columbia bill, we have those folks on the other
side of the aisle who would rather see, as they have already been
quoted in the newspaper as saying--and I am not talking about all the
folks but some of the folks--we see some of those folks saying that
they would rather see the entire District of Columbia budget held up
for months rather than to compromise on the issue of $7 million for
vouchers.
And then on the Interior bill, we have language which was inserted by
the conferees with respect to Lake Clarke which was certainly not in
either bill and which in my view is a huge threat to that spectacular
piece of property, and that is holding up agreement. And so is the fact
that the administration has come in with a number of items late in the
day expressing their objections about those items when in fact many of
them were not raised when we had top level discussions with the
leadership on those issues. And so it seems to me that there is no
reason whatsoever to continuing this session or to pass this CR except
for the fact that we have a few folks around this town and in two cases
a few folks in the other caucus in this House who would rather hold
their breath and turn blue than get the people's work done.
There is not a whole lot we can do about that, but we are essentially
getting paid each day between now and the end of this session for doing
nothing. It seems that sooner or later, we ought to tell both the
hardheads in this House and the Johnny-come-latelies in the
administration that we are not interested in their continuing to hold
up our ability to finish this session of the Congress. It seems to me
that granting further extensions only encourages people to refuse to
cooperate.
It appears to me that we are not going to be able to shut this place
down until the extreme elements in this House on at least two issues
have demonstrated that they are willing to go right through the end of
the continuing resolution period before they are going to be willing to
compromise. As long as we are around here, the administration is going
to be continuing to ask for other items that they had not thought of
before.
It just seems to me what we ought to do is pass this CR and say,
``Boys and girls, no more. No more. Get your work done. Come up here
and compromise, recognize that you are not just elected to define
differences, you are also elected to resolve differences once those
differences are defined.''
As I said earlier, on the Appropriations Committee I am convinced the
gentleman from Louisiana and I could reach agreement in about 2 days,
maybe 2 hours on these items. It just seems to me it is ludicrous to
pretend to the public that anything useful is going on because
hardheads will not be reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1100
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
[[Page H8938]]
Mr. Speaker, much of what the gentleman from Wisconsin has said, I
have to agree with. I think we could wrap up our business very rapidly,
but for other reasons, we are not. I would say we are making progress.
We are not sitting around doing nothing. The fact is we expect that
today, for example, the Interior bill will be resolved and filed with
the House, and the Labor-Health bill by the end of the week will, for
all intents and purposes, be finalized and be ready for House action
next week.
But in addition to appropriations matters, let me say that the
Congress still has yet to complete action on the ISTEA legislation,
which deals with funding of transportation projects. That will have to
be done between now and the time that we adjourn, and a matter of great
importance to the President, if not to the other side of the aisle, is
this whole matter of fast track, which deals with the authorization of
the President to negotiate trade deals with our Latin American friends
and allies.
The President has said that it is very important to him and to the
future of the country, and I tend to agree with him. However, if you do
a nose count at this point, the fact is that the President has been
very unpersuasive with his Members of his own party. Very few Members
of the Democrat Party as of this moment seem to support that fast-track
legislation, and it would fall on the shoulders of the Republicans to
pass the legislation, which, frankly, puts us in an awkward position,
because some of our Members do not favor it. And the last thing in the
world that would be good for this country, and, in fact, for this
administration, is if the matter were brought up to the floor and had
an insufficient number of votes to pass.
So I expect that the President, if he is listening or if he reads the
proceedings of debate on this resolution, should get busy and start
calling Members of his own party to encourage them to support an
initiative which he has advocated and proposed and backed for the last
couple of years.
That is an important piece of legislation, and that must be tackled
before we leave. If we do not have the votes, however, it will not be.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, a small point, but I would ask the gentleman when he
refers to my party to refer to it as the Democratic Party. That is, in
fact, the name of our party. We do not call the Republican Party the
``Republic Party.'' It has been a practice of some Members of the
Republican Party for a generation to call us the ``Democrat Party,''
but, in fact, it is the Democratic Party, and I would appreciate it if
they would remember that.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, having grown up in Louisiana where the
Democratic Party was of paramount significance throughout my entire
life, I would only say that was what I was taught by my friends,
neighbors, peers, allies, and Democratic friends. So that is why I used
the term ``Democrat.''
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the name of the party is
``Democratic.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to rise in support of the
continuing resolution and to congratulate both the Chair and the
ranking member of the committee for the extraordinary work they do on
this whole process. If everything went as they wanted, I think we would
be moving through this whole process quite quickly.
But I took this time and came to the floor after listening to some
really flagrant misrepresentations about one aspect of the continuing
resolution and of the appropriations process, and that is the question
of the extension of section 245(I).
I have heard it discussed as an amnesty provision and stay of
deportation provision. Section 245(I) has nothing to do with that.
Section 245(I) of the law, in the immigration law, is only available
to people who are already eligible to become permanent residents. It is
not an amnesty, it only applies to people who, under our legal
immigration system, are now eligible at the particular time to adjust
status.
The only issue it deals with is where they can adjust status, whether
they can adjust status in this country or whether they have to go back
to their home country, take the airline, pay the airline, go into our
consular office at our embassy or one of the Consulates in the foreign
country, go in that morning, show their papers, pick up their visa, and
in many cases on the very next flight.
What we did back 3 or 4 years ago is say this is crazy. We are
pushing a great deal of resources into our beleaguered embassies abroad
for work that is not particularly relevant to anything in our national
interests. We are giving money to the airlines. Let us raise the fees
for that adjustment.
Let the agency that is most equipped to deal with it, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service, deal with it, in-country, for those people
who are eligible. It simply permits these people who are eligible, who
are in line, whose time has come, to adjust to legal status in this
country as a permanent resident, to do that in the United States.
It does not give illegal immigrants the right to live in the United
States. It is not a defense to an action for deportation. It is not a
stay of deportation. It is not an American necessity. It does not
declare as legal people who have come here illegally. It does not
change the order in which a person's claim is adjudicated.
There is one single worldwide line for everyone who is waiting for
their immigrant visa. There are category limits, there are country
limits, and only when that person's number comes up and that person's
time in line, he gets to the front of the line, can he then adjust his
status.
Mr. Speaker, we produce now $200 million a year in revenue,
essentially by processing the people in-country rather than giving even
greater amounts of that money to the airlines and costing our State
Department far more to process them overseas. This frees up our
consular officials to do the key work of screening applicants for visas
in those countries, looking for terrorists, looking for people with
criminal backgrounds, ensuring they do not come into this country. It
has them doing the work we should be wanting them to do, not simply
processing the paperwork for people whose turn has come through the
legal immigration system.
It is for that reason that an incredible array of organizations,
almost every major business organization in the country, wants to do
this. This is the most expeditious and sensible fashion for processing
legal immigrants.
So, I just hope as the appropriators go to a decision on the
Commerce-State-Justice bill, as we deal with this continuing
resolution, that all of the scare tactics about amnesty and stays of
deportation are seen for what they are. They are an effort to cloud the
real issue in the 245(I) debate.
Section 245(I) produces $200 million a year by allowing people whose
time has come to adjust status through the legal immigration system to
adjust in the United States. Eighty percent of that money goes for
enforcement of our borders and to keep illegal immigrants from entering
the United States, and it makes a tremendous amount of sense from every
point of view and from every type of analysis. I urge its adoption.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). All time for debate has
expired.
The joint resolution is considered as having been read for amendment.
Pursuant to House Resolution 269, the previous question is ordered.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider
was laid on the table.
____________________