[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.

                          ____________________