Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Bills Search » DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 - Bills
Search Bills

Browse Bills

93rd (26222)
94th (23756)
95th (21548)
96th (14332)
97th (20134)
98th (19990)
99th (15984)
100th (15557)
101st (15547)
102nd (16113)
103rd (13166)
104th (11290)
105th (11312)
106th (13919)
107th (16380)
108th (15530)
109th (19491)
110th (7009)
111th (19293)
112th (15911)
113th (9767)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 [105th]
Summary:

All articles in House section

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
(House of Representatives - November 12, 1997) Text of this article available as:
  • TXT
  • PDF
[Pages H10676-H10763] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 105-403) on the resolution (H. Res. 324) providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2607) 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, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 324 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 324 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2607) 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, with Senate amendments thereto, and [[Page H10677]] to consider in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, a single motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and disagree to the Senate amendment to the title. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] is recognized for 1 hour. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, while considering the final appropriations bills, the Senate rolled the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill and the Foreign Operations appropriations bill into the D.C. appropriations bill and, therefore, created an omnibus appropriations bill. The House amendment we will consider tonight strikes all provisions out of the omnibus appropriations bill, except for the District of Columbia, and amends that bill with the recommendation of the House Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides for a single motion by the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, or his designee, to concur in the Senate amendment to the text, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, with the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report and disagree to the Senate amendment to the title. The rule further provides that the Senate amendments to the House bill and the motion are considered as read. The motion is debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. There is little argument that the District of Columbia is in bad shape. The city suffers from deteriorating infrastructure, high crime rates, a shrinking population, and poor services. We must take bold steps to reform the way this city operates so that it can again take its place among the great cities of the world. As a former mayor, I know the challenges that come with running a city. It will not be easy to reform, but we must start now. I was very supportive of the bill that originally passed in the House. I believe that it contains some tough language that will go a long way to changing the face of our Nation's Capital. The bill met with stiff resistance and has been replaced. This is a good rule. It allows us to debate D.C. appropriations as a single issue, rather than as part of an omnibus package. We need to take a step toward restoring some of the luster our Nation's Capital city has lost in recent years. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I look forward to the debate about the future of our Nation's Capital. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is late in the day and it is late in the session. We are now 43 days into fiscal year 1998 and it is high time that we finish our business for the year. With any luck, we will be able to finish the District of Columbia appropriations this evening, leaving only 1 other appropriations bill outstanding. The Republican majority has finally seen the light and has given up for the time being, at least, its desire to use the District and its residents as a grand experiment in Republican social engineering on school vouchers. As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is late in the day and it is late in the session. It is time for the Republican majority to govern. It is time to stop using appropriations to move a legislative agenda that is not supported by a majority of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the negotiating process on District of Columbia appropriations has resulted in creating a bill which is vastly superior to the product originally passed by 1 vote in the House. I will support this rule only because the bill passed by the Senate and the amendment which is now being recommended as a further amendment address the issues of providing the Federal payment to the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital, and not the Republican social agenda. It is unfortunate, however, that it has taken this long to reach this point. Mr. Speaker, because it is late, I will reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]. (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just note, I have further comments in my revisions, but I am happy we have gotten to this point. It has taken a long time. The city of Washington has had to borrow money during the time that we have not been able to move forward with the appropriation, but with a lot of work of people on both sides of the aisle we have come to the conclusion this evening that we have an appropriation bill that I am proud to support. I want to thank my ranking member of the authorizing committee, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who have worked very closely with us on appropriations to bring this to where it is tonight. The city needs this money. We have an appropriations bill that I would urge all of my colleagues to support. Our Nation's capital desperately needs this budget bill to be enacted now. Failure to do so would have major negative consequences. Failure to pass this budget now would cause the District of Columbia to slide even further backward. Failure to pass this budget now would be reckless and tragic. This is especially so because this Congress and the last Congress have done so much to get the Nation's Capital on the right track. To defeat the bill at this point would risk doing irreparable harm to our fundamental goals of reform and revitalization of our Nation's Capital. It is wrong to gamble with the lives of millions in this region who depend on an orderly budget process. We all know of the D.C. Revitalization Act which passed this Congress as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Strong management reform measures, Medicaid changes and tax incentives were included as well in that enactment and in the equally Historic Tax Reform Act of 1997. To have enacted such significant reforms, and to see them signed by the President, is a legislative accomplishment we can all take pride in helping to achieve. With patience and perseverance the reforms we have enacted for the District of Columbia have begun to have their intended effect. We now have a rare opportunity, sanctioned by both Congress and the White House, to restructure and improve the complex relationship between the Federal Government and the Nation's Capital. But time is of the essence. And we are at a moment of truth. Many of the issues addressed in the D.C. Revitalization Act are particularly urgent and time sensitive. To take just one example, a Federal trustee must be up and running to help establish reforms in the District's prison system. Just last month the court-appointed monitor said of the medium-security facility at Lorton that ``it has deteriorated to a level of depravity that is unparalleled in its troubled history.'' It is tragic enough when Congress reaches an impasse in consideration of a budget for one of our executive departments. But if we are unable to enact a budget for the Nation's Capital, that real city which exists just beyond the monuments is placed at a grave risk of immediate harm. And when you consider that most of the District's budget consists of self-generated funds, it makes the spectacle of congressional delay even more difficult to explain. Some of us have differences with various sections of the bill before us. Many have reservations which I share. But I appeal to you, as chairman of the authorizing subcommittee for the District of Columbia, to join me in voting for this budget bill so we can give the Nation's Capital a chance to survive as a city. I am pleased that the Victims of Communism Relief Act of 1997 is incorporated in this bill and will become law. The agreement provides that Nicaraguans and Cubans who entered the United States prior to December 1, 1995, will be made eligible for lawful permanent residence provided they apply prior to April 1, 2000. [[Page H10678]] Guatemalans and Salvadorans, who filed for asylum prior to April 1, 1990, and members of the ABC class, will have their cases reviewed under the less onerous rules in existence before the 1996 Immigration Act [IIRIRA] went into effect. In addition, battered spouses and children in proceedings prior to April 1, 1997, will be processed under the pre-IIRIRA rules. Guatemalans and Salvadorans will have their adjustments offset by reductions in the diversity and unskilled--nonagricultural--worker programs, which will not exceed 5,000 in each annually. All pending approved petitions for unskilled worker visas will be permitted to adjust under the current 10,000 cap. Members of the defined categories of Central Americans--Salvadorans and Guatemalans--whose cases are under the jurisdiction of the post- April 1 rules, will have their claims for cancellation of removal adjudicated under the more generous standard of 7 years continuous residence and extreme hardship, not subject to the 4,000-person cap. All Guatemalans and Salvadorans who meet the eligibility requirements states above will be exempted from the stop time rule, as interpreted by the Board of Immigration Claims' N-J-B ruling. Individuals not within these categories will be subject to the stop-time rule. Refugees from the former Warsaw Pact nations will have their cases governed according to the same rules which will apply for Guatemalans and Salvadorans. Mr. Speaker, many Central Americans have made a positive impact in our community in northern Virginia. The inclusion of this legislation in the D.C. appropriation bill will bring a measure of justice to thousands who have fled oppression in their native land to seek the freedom and opportunity offered in this Nation. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I think it is an unfair rule, and this Congress should know why I think that way. I went to the Committee on Rules tonight to see if I could get an amendment ruled eligible for the floor which would have turned around an injustice which is in this bill. I think what Congress sees in this bill is what happens when legislators, people in Congress, make rules on appropriations bills. It is always a disaster when that happens, and it is too bad that this particular amendment on immigration, a situation that is so very direly needed in this country, was placed on an appropriations bill, and a very important appropriations bill, for the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia has been bandied about in this Congress. I think it is high time we put the kind of precedence and the kind of attention on this particular bill that it should receive. Now, while I do not oppose the District of Columbia's appropriations bill being passed, I do not oppose the Nicaraguans getting their amnesty on this bill, and I do not oppose the Central Americans getting their amnesty, but what I do reject is the idea that the Haitians in this country that came here under the same credible fear of persecution as the Nicaraguans and the Central Americans and the Cubans are now left out of this particular bill. I am being told that, number 1, the Haitians were never to be considered. They were not a part of the agreement. As a matter of fact, I have substantive proof to show that they were not a part of the agreement. We lobbied very hard to try to get them included. It is never too late for this Congress to do the right thing. But there is something that perplexes me, which is, why is it that always when communities of color come up in immigration, they are always overlooked or there is always some excuse as to why they were not in the original agreement? I am asking this Congress, why? That is why I am opposing this rule, because this rule is unfair. Why have Nicaraguans, Cubans, Guatemalans, and Salvadoreans, who will live next door to each other in some of our communities, one will get a green card and the others cannot. One could seek citizenship after 4 to 5 years; the others cannot. Is that fair? My answer is no, it is not fair. It is another step of unfairness in this country. The reason that it is so unfair is we allow it to happen. We allow these kinds of things to come in on an appropriations bill. We allow the unfairness to be so dominant in the kinds of decisions we make here. If we were fair, that amendment would have never passed the Senate, it would never have come over here. If we were fair, the Haitians would have been given the same time for amnesty as Nicaraguans and others. I have fought very hard on this floor, Mr. Speaker, for Cubans, for Hispanics, for Latinos in this country. I think it is a slap in the face to the Black Caucus and to the other caucuses which have stood so steadily behind all of the bills that the Cuban Members of this Congress brought here, yet we could not receive any support to include the Haitians. It is wrong, and I will always say it. It is wrong, and we should turn it around. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I also thank her for her commitment to this endeavor and for her leadership that she has demonstrated on behalf of those that she, myself, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown], and countless others in this Congress are supportive of receiving the same consideration as others have under this particular measure. Reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the rule. Like the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], said, I will support the ultimate bill because I feel that it is no more than fair to the District of Columbia that has been burdened in an equivalent manner, and in my view has not been treated as fairly as they should be. But all the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] sought in the Committee on Rules was an amendment that would allow for an up-or-down vote on whether or not the Haitian refugees, particularly those that came through Guantanamo, would receive the same consideration as everyone else. Neither the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] nor I take any back seat to supporting all of the efforts of those who we represent in south Florida. I support Nicaraguans, and I think that they should receive an amnesty that they have received. I support Central Americans, and I think that they should receive the amnesty that they are going to be able to apply for and receive. I even support Eastern Europeans and think that it is appropriate that this Nation, the beacon for freedom and fairness, would offer them an opportunity to seek amnesty under appropriate circumstances. However, I totally reject the notion that those that we made a commitment to, that we are not fair enough to continue our efforts to ensure that that commitment is kept. {time} 2315 Once again, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and will vote to reject the rule for the reason that she will reject it, in her efforts to make a simple amendment that asks for nothing but fairness. Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will say in the end that this is an unjust and unfair rule. It is a rule which overlooks the equalness and equality which we push in this country. Having supported every effort to bring about equality in this country for immigrants and everyone else, I reject any statement. That is why I am voting against the rule. I call on the Members of this Congress who believe in fairness and equity for all immigrants, not just one particular set, to reject this rule, to send a message to the Republicans that they do not choose certain immigrants because they go by the same ethnicity as they do to include in a bill. It is not fair, and it will show an unfairness for the majority party. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of working on the education provisions of this legislation. I would like to personally thank the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Charles Taylor, and ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Jim Moran, who not only listened but was cooperative and worked very closely with the committee. I would also like to thank and I think D.C. and this body owes a great [[Page H10679]] deal of gratitude to Gen. Julius Becton, who has taken on almost an impossible task of cutting through not only economic problems but the political problems of D.C. schools. He has worked tirelessly in changing some of the rules and in helping children in the District. I would like to commend General Becton. Mr. Speaker, what education provisions are in the bill? It provides $3.3 million for public charter schools, that is good within this bill, but it also adds money for the public schools. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] fought for these provisions along with Republicans, and we find that it is in the best interests and will help. There is a technical improvement to the D.C. charter schools. There are about four of them. I will not belabor them, but I think these provisions will actually help. It was done on a bipartisan basis, both Republicans and Democrats. The National Education Association will finally pay its fair share of taxes, which is about $1.1 million a year that will go to help D.C. schools. We helped with that. One of the things that I am saddened by, Mr. Speaker, is that union bosses once again prevailed in stopping and preventing the aid to children in schools within D.C. by waiving Davis-Bacon. The average age of D.C. schools, the average age, is 86 years old, Mr. Speaker, 86 years. The roofs were so bad, schools were delayed. The fire codes are so bad that it was not even placed in the fire department, it is in the hands of a judge. Yet, union bosses prevented saving up to 25 percent on school construction by giving the school construction authority the ability to waive Davis-Bacon. Once again, the unions chose to line their pockets rather than come to the aid of children. I think that is sickening, Mr. Speaker. It is something that we need to change. The D.C. Student Opportunities Scholarship, which is not included in this, which my friend said is a Republican strategy or social strategy, is going to be in a freestanding bill to where he can vote up or down on it. Only a liberal would say that he does not want to help education and children have a choice of where they could go. There is no pay raise for properly credentialed teachers, which we felt was important. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the gentleman from California who just spoke, when he was praising General Becton, he used the term, ``I would like to command General Becton.'' I think he may want to correct the Record. I suspect he meant ``commend General Becton.'' I might like to command him, but I note that he may want to catch that in the Record. Either way, I agree with the gentleman that General Becton is doing a fine job in a very difficult situation with the D.C. school system, and this bill helps that situation. It will be a long time before we correct all of D.C.'s problems, but certainly this is a step forward. That is why I rise in support of this rule. I do not disagree with the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] about the fact that Haitian refugees should get fair, comparable treatment to Central American and Cuban refugees. She argues about something that is not in the rule that she wants in the rule. I do not disagree with the issue, but I do think that this rule should be supported. We need to get on with the business of providing the necessary funds for the District of Columbia. They are facing a financial crisis. So let us get this rule passed. I find nothing objectionable in it as it pertains to the District of Columbia, and I will address the substance of the bill when the bill is brought up. I do urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart. Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the legislation on immigration that is included in this appropriations bill, I think it is important to point out that it is historic. It is in the great generous and compassionate tradition of the United States. The process behind the Central American relief legislation began in July of this year, in June and July of this year, after a commitment by President Clinton to the Central American Presidents during a summit in Costa Rica, and also a commitment by the Speaker of the House, Speaker Gingrich, after a visit to south Florida, precisely commenting on this issue. The legislation was drafted after serious consultation with the National Security Council and the Department of Justice. It was drafted to prevent the deportation of Nicaraguans and also of Guatemalans and Salvadorans, known as the ABC class, that were denied suspension of deportation by the retroactivity of the Immigration Reform Act that was passed last year. I want to point out, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that passage of this language, which is included in the District of Columbia appropriations bill, will not in any way hinder efforts to seek similar relief for Haitian refugees in other legislative measures. Last week, Senator Moseley-Braun in the Senate put a hold on the Senate D.C. appropriations bill because of the Haitian issue. She lifted her objection after the Attorney General and the White House agreed to provide administrative relief to the Haitian community while Congress considers a legislative remedy. The agreement reached between the Senator and the administration provides that the President will authorize the Attorney General to temporarily suspend the deportation of Haitians while Congress considers legislation to provide relief to the Haitian community in the United States. The bill has already been introduced in the Senate by Senator Bob Graham and Senator Connie Mack and others, including Senator Abraham, and a House companion bill has been dropped, to my understanding, by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. I have agreed to be a cosponsor of that bill, as I have always been a cosponsor of legislation by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] on this issue of our Haitian brothers and sisters. Mr. Speaker, I will request and insist upon hearings not only in the Senate on this legislation but in the House as well and on the basis of this White House agreement of Senator Moseley-Braun where she lifted her hold and the Senate passed the D.C. appropriations bill by voice vote. Mr. Speaker, I support, as I always have, the efforts to seek justice for our Haitian brothers and sisters. My distinguished friend, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], knows that. I will continue doing so. So as I recommit to do all I can to help our Haitian friends, I seek justice and commend the Speaker and all of those who have been involved, Mr. Smith, as well as the leaders in the Senate, Senator Abraham and Senator Mack and Senator Bob Graham and others, who have worked on this. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, am I understanding the gentleman correctly that we have his commitment that he will push to ensure that the Haitians receive the same consideration that the Nicaraguans have? Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman is answering it, would he be so kind as to tell me, was it not equally possible that we could have included the Haitians in this particular measure? Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The gentleman is aware of the fact that in the negotiations that led to this legislation, Mr. Smith made what I consider to have been a very good faith offer with regard to the Haitians. The gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] was of the opinion that that was not something that should be finalized in the terms that were offered. But yes, my commitment is there, my distinguished friend, with regard to pushing this issue further. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for a vote, a positive vote, on the rule on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, this is the last appropriation out. By all rights, it should have been the first, considering the [[Page H10680]] condition of the District of Columbia and considering that there is only a token amount of Federal funds. I am coming to this floor to ask permission to spend my own money. I do not know what the rest of the Members would do if they had to do this. This is a caboose appropriation held up in the Senate, as Members have heard, over an issue completely unrelated. I could not be more in sympathy with the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. If my appropriation has been treated regrettably, she has been treated most unfairly, and I pledge to her that I will do all in my power to monitor this matter to see that the compromise that has been achieved is carried out and to see that full justice is done in legislation when we return. This bill has been cleansed of the issues that would have gotten a veto. Some of them would have been micromanagement of the District. Others would have been ideological issues. We have gone from micromanaging the District to micromanaging the Control Board. We have to stop that. The Control Board is not above criticism, and I have been among its critics, but the fact is that these are five distinguished people working for no pay who are trying to do an almost impossible job. We ought to reinforce them, unless they get way off the mark. We are not close enough to take what they do and unravel it dollar by dollar. All sides need to talk and negotiate before the appropriation period, rather than waiting for the appropriation to try to reform the District of Columbia. If Members want to have meaningful participation in the reform and restructuring of the District, let the Committee on Appropriations, the subcommittee, the authorizing subcommittee, the Control Board, and the District sit down and work out their problems before they get to this floor. Home Rule? Yes, that is one reason this bill must be supported, because it has the support of the District of Columbia, which worked hard to please the Congress in what it has achieved, but it also must be supported because this bill is, in fact, an efficient and reliable way to move the District forward. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen]. Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues, the gentlewoman from south Florida, Mrs. Carrie Meek, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Alcee Hastings, have done a formidable job of defending our community, especially the immigrant community, after their many years of dedicated service. All of us in the south Florida congressional delegation have the great privilege of representing various pockets of the immigrant community, and we try to help all of those communities whenever we can. I commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], for their leadership. It is because of their firm belief in fairness that my other colleague, the gentleman from Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], and I are going to join with them in working with our Florida Senators, Connie Mack and Bob Graham, to get fair treatment for the Haitians. In January when we come back to debate the new bills, we will continue working with our south Florida colleagues and our Florida Senators to see that the Guantanamo Haitians get the fair treatment that they deserve. I visited the Guantanamo base in Cuba while the Haitians were there, I know of their plight. It was a great honor for me when I first came to Congress to represent the community of little Haiti. It is a wonderful law-abiding community, and I have supported and will continue to support the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] in cosponsoring her bill. We have worked with the White House to work out this compromise that no deportations will be taking place while the legislation moves through the proper procedures in the House and the Senate. {time} 2230 However, the bill before us now does save many thousands of lives from the immigration limbo that they are facing, the deportation that has been dividing many communities. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and move this legislation forward, which is going to help so many immigrants. And we look forward to continuing in the new session in supporting other immigrants as well. As an immigrant myself, as a political refugee who sought freedom and democracy, I know what this country stands for, and I know the beliefs that have brought us here still linger in our hearts. And we practice them every day. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this come true. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the time remaining on each side. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 19 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] has 181/2 minutes remaining. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a rather unfortunate situation. This is the most cynical kind of public policy-making that I have ever witnessed. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Haitians would have been left out from consideration. As I understand, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reports that, as of September 30, 1996, applications for asylum were pending for about 18,000 Haitians, 21,000 Nicaraguans, 118,000 Guatemalans, and 191,000 Salvadorans. How can they just drop the Haitians? It does not make good sense, and then they place it on the D.C. appropriations, where we are desperate to try and get a little justice for the District of Columbia, and they pit people against each other in the most unfair way. There is no rational reason for it. They should not put the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] in the position of standing up here asking for a no vote on the rule for the District of Columbia, when they know how desperate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] is. As a matter of fact, if they had any decency at all, they would pull this rule from the floor and go back and put the Haitians in. These Haitians were promised. I have got letters here from Haitians whose parents were killed right before their eyes. They are seeking asylum because they were under political massacre from the Haitians down there. And my colleagues would stand here and allow this situation to develop. This is unconscionable. It is unreasonable. It is unfair. It is unjust. It is unkind. It is everything that I can think of when I look at what they are doing. I cannot stand hear and say, do not support the D.C. rule. At the same time, we have these Representatives from Florida who are sitting here in pain because of what they are doing. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] and the rest of my colleagues who negotiated this deal, they should stand up like men and women and undo it now and do the right thing. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member very much for his kindness. Let me, first of all, thank the hard work of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for working so hard on the D.C. appropriations bill and particularly the charter school effort that I think will help our children in the District of Columbia. I heard a colleague mention the need for money for construction and accusing unions of taking monies out of the children of the District of Columbia. If my Republican colleagues had voted for the $5 billion infrastructure addition to the budget, we might have had those dollars for the D.C. schools. More importantly, I think it should be well known that this is D.C. money and not our money, and all we are doing is tying it up and not spending it. Let me move quickly to the Haitian question, because I join my colleagues in a great deal of dissatisfaction with the committee for not allowing this particular amendment of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] to be drawn to this rule that would allow the Haitians to be included in the privilege [[Page H10681]] and waiver of allowing them to stay and continue their process of application. This is, of course, a discriminatory process, even though I applaud the White House and Attorney General for the administrative process that will allow them to stay in and the hearings of my colleague the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and the work of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. As a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I think this is an unpardonable sin. The Haitians deserve the same kind of freedom and opportunity that other immigrants deserve when they come to this country. Now 11,000 immigrants will be separated from their families. Who is to say that there is not persecution in Haiti as there is in Nicaragua and Guatemala? I support what has happened to the Nicaraguans' and the Guatemalans' country for freedom. We always have supported this in a combined effort to support those who come here to this country for freedom. My question to my colleagues is, how can you deny this to Haitians? How can you stand up here and separate immigrants who have come here for freedom? I would ask that this rule be denied and voted down, not because I do not support the District of Columbia, because it is their money, but because they do not even allow the immigrants that are Haitians that come to this country for freedom to get the same privileges of those that are getting the privilege. I ask for my colleagues to consider the disparate treatment being given to Haitians in this country. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] how many speakers he has left. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at this point, we have one speaker remaining. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any more speakers, so I reserve my time. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for yielding me the time. I, too, am one who is pleased that there was progress with the D.C. appropriations bill. It is certainly true that the District of Columbia needs the funding. I wish I could stand here and tell my colleagues that we should pass this rule and get on with our business, but I cannot because of many of the reasons that have been stated by some of my colleagues, especially from Florida, with regard to a particular provision which was added to this appropriation bill that really does not have anything to do with D.C. appropriations but, nonetheless, was added. Let me quote for my colleagues from a letter of the President of the United States of November 4, 1997, where he said with regard to the issue affecting immigrants, principally from Central America and the Haitian community, that he was trying, through the legislation he had provided Congress to work on, he was seeking fair and equitable treatment for these individuals from these countries in Central America and Haiti. He goes on to say, ``I am concerned, however, that this legislation, unlike my original proposal, inappropriately distinguishes among nationals from different countries, including those from Central America. It requires continued retroactive application of certain provisions in the 1996 immigration law and does not allow for an adequate transition to the law's new rules. Accordingly, the Congress should provide for a fair resolution of these issues.'' He goes on to say, ``In addition, I strongly urge the Congress to provide to Haitians treatment similar to that provided to Central Americans.'' What the President was speaking of was the change from his legislation that came to Congress and was being sponsored by certain Members in the House and the Senate and what is now in this appropriation bill, which is much different from what the President first proposed. As Cardinal Law from Massachusetts said, ``We are putting these immigrants through `emotional torture'.'' Cardinal Law goes on to say, ``The United States must provide for equitable treatment to Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans, as well as justice for Haitians, in emerging immigration legislation.'' Mr. Speaker, what a number of us are saying here today is that, when we had a chance to put forth equity, when we had a chance to right the wrongs of last year's immigration law, when we had a chance to show that we respect and dignify people who come to this country to escape persecution and to start a new life, we failed. We failed because we were able to do a great amount for some, and I am very pleased that the Nicaraguans will have a chance to say that they will receive amnesty, but we did not do it for any other Central American constituency similarly situated. The Salvadorans and the Guatemalans are in no different condition than the Nicaraguans, yet they are being treated differently. And the Haitians are completely shut out of this legislation. That is wrong. We could have cured this. We do not need to wait for future legislation to deal with this. We could have done it today, and we did not. That is the shame of this bill that we have before us. That is why, unfortunately, some of us have to stand here and say that it is better to vote no on the rule than yes. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers at this time. I ask, is the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] going to yield back her time at this point? Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 324, I call up the bill (H.R. 2607) 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 Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the Senate amendments is as follows: Senate amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the several departments, agencies, corporations and other organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year 1998, and for other purposes, namely: DIVISION A--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, to be effective as if it had been enacted into law as the regular appropriations Act, namely: TITLE I--FISCAL YEAR 1998 APPROPRIATIONS FEDERAL FUNDS Federal Payment for Management Reform For payment to the District of Columbia, as authorized by section 11103(c) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, $8,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999, which shall be deposited into an escrow account of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and shall be disbursed from such escrow account pursuant to the instructions of the Authority only for a program of management reform pursuant to sections 11101-11106 of the District of Columbia Management Reform Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33. Federal Contribution to the Operations of the Nation's Capital For a Federal contribution to the District of Columbia toward the costs of the operation of the government of the District of Columbia, $190,000,000, which shall be deposited into an escrow account held by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, which shall allocate the funds to the Mayor at such intervals and in accordance with such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate to implement the financial plan for the year: Provided, That these funds may be used by the District of Columbia for the costs of advances to the District government as authorized by section 11402 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33: Provided further, That not less than $30,000,000 shall be used by the District of Columbia to repay the accumulated general fund deficit. Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee Operations For payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee, $169,000,000 for the administration and operation of correctional facilities and [[Page H10682]] for the administrative operating costs of the Office of the Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33. Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee for Correctional Facilities, Construction and Repair For payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee for Correctional Facilities, $302,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which not less than $294,900,000 is available for transfer to the Federal Prison System, as authorized by section 11202 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33. Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Criminal Justice System (Including Transfer of Funds) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, $108,000,000 for payment to the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia for operation of the District of Columbia Courts, including pension costs: Provided, That said sums shall be paid quarterly by the Treasury of the United States based on quarterly apportionments approved by the Office of Management and Budget, with payroll and financial services to be provided on a contractual basis with the General Services Administration, said services to include the preparation and submission of monthly financial reports to the President and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives; of which not to exceed $750,000 shall be available for establishment and operations of the District of Columbia Truth in Sentencing Commission as authorized by section 11211 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for an additional amount, $43,000,000, for payment to the Offender Supervision Trustee to be available only for obligation by the Offender Supervision Trustee; of which $26,855,000 shall be available for Parole, Adult Probation and Offender Supervision; of which $9,000,000 shall be available to the Public Defender Service; of which $6,345,000 shall be available to the Pretrial Services Agency; and of which not to exceed $800,000 shall be transferred to the United States Parole Commission to implement section 11231 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS OPERATING EXPENSES Division of Expenses The following amounts are appropriated for the District of Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically provided. Governmental Direction and Support Governmental direction and support, $105,177,000 (including $84,316,000 from local funds, $14,013,000 from Federal funds, and $6,848,000 from other funds): Provided, That not to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation for official purposes: Provided further, That any program fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of the District of Columbia: Provided further, That no revenues from Federal sources shall be used to support the operations or activities of the Statehood Commission and Statehood Compact Commission: Provided further, That the District of Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission to Statehood from its own locally-generated revenues: Provided further, That $240,000 shall be available for citywide special elections: Provided further, That all employees permanently assigned to work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid from funds allocated to the Office of the Mayor. Economic Development and Regulation Economic development and regulation, $120,072,000 (including $40,377,000 from local funds, $42,065,000 from Federal funds, and $37,630,000 from other funds), together with $12,000,000 collected in the form of BID tax revenue collected by the District of Columbia on behalf of business improvement districts pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996, effective May 29, 1996 (D.C. Law 11- 134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the Business Improvement Districts Temporary Amendment Act of 1997 (Bill 12-230). Public Safety and Justice Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease of 135 passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement only, including 130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use, without regard to the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year, $529,739,000 (including $510,326,000 from local funds, $13,519,000 from Federal funds, and $5,894,000 from other funds): Provided, That the Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services of the District of Columbia is authorized to replace not to exceed five passenger-carrying vehicles annually whenever the cost of repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds three-fourths of the cost of the replacement: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be available from this appropriation for the Chief of Police for the prevention and detection of crime: Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate on efforts to increase efficiency and improve the professionalism in the department: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order 86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Metropolitan Police Department's delegated small purchase authority shall be $500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia government may not require the Metropolitan Police Department to submit to any other procurement review process, or to obtain the approval of or be restricted in any manner by any official or employee of the District of Columbia government, for purchases that do not exceed $500,000: Provided further, That the Mayor shall reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for expenses incurred in connection with services that are performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting payment in advance for emergency services involved: Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn officers, with leave for a 50 officer attrition: Provided further, That no more than 15 members of the Metropolitan Police Department shall be detailed or assigned to the Executive Protection Unit, until the Chief of Police submits a recommendation to the Council for its review: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be available for inmates released on medical and geriatric parole: Provided further, That not less than $2,254,754 shall be available to support a pay raise for uniformed firefighters, when authorized by the District of Columbia Council and the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, which funding will be made available as savings achieved through actions within the appropriated budget: Provided further, That, commencing on December 31, 1997, the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, quarterly reports on the status of crime reduction in each of the 83 police service areas established throughout the District of Columbia: Provided further, That funds appropriated for expenses under the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act, approved September 3, 1974 (88 Stat. 1090; Public Law 93-412; D.C. Code, sec. 11-2601 et seq.), for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in each fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 1975: Provided further, That funds appropriated for expenses under the District of Columbia Neglect Representation Equity Act of 1984, effective March 13, 1985 (D.C. Law 5-129; D.C. Code, sec. 16-2304), for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in each fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 1985: Provided further, That funds appropriated for expenses under the District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986, effective February 27, 1987 (D.C. Law 6-204; D.C. Code, sec. 21-2060), for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in each fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 1989. Public Education System Public education system, including the development of national defense education programs, $672,444,000 (including $530,197,000 from local funds, $112,806,000 from Federal funds, and $29,441,000 from other funds), to be allocated as follows: $564,129,000 (including $460,143,000 from local funds, $98,491,000 from Federal funds, and $5,495,000 from other funds), for the public schools of the District of Columbia; $8,900,000 from local funds for the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; $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 one 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 Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees of the District of Columbia 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 Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees reports to Congress as provided in the preceding proviso, the Emergency Transitional Education 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 to assistance provided to other District of Columbia public schools: Provided further, That the Emergency Transitional [[Page H10683]] Education 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; $74,087,000 (including $37,791,000 from local funds, $12,804,000 from Federal funds, and $23,492,000 from other funds) for the University of the District of Columbia; $22,036,000 (including $20,424,000 from local funds, $1,158,000 from Federal funds, and $454,000 from other funds) for the Public Library; $2,057,000 (including $1,704,000 from local funds and $353,000 from Federal funds) for the Commission on the Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That the public schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use in the driver education program: Provided further, That not to exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for the President of the University of the District of Columbia, and $2,000 for the Public Librarian shall be available from this appropriation for official purposes: Provided further, That not less than $1,200,000 shall be available for local school allotments in a restricted line item: Provided further, That not less than $4,500,000 shall be available to support kindergarten aides in a restricted line item: Provided further, That not less than $2,800,000 shall be available to support substitute teachers in a restricted line item: Provided further, That not less than $1,788,000 shall be available in a restricted line item for school counselors: Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the education of nonresidents of the District of Columbia at the University of the District of Columbia, unless the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia adopts, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, a tuition rate schedule that will establish the tuition rate for nonresident students at a level no lower than the nonresident tuition rate charged at comparable public institutions of higher education in the metropolitan area. Human Support Services Human support services, $1,718,939,000 (including $789,350,000 from local funds, $886,702,000 from Federal funds, and $42,887,000 from other funds): Provided, That $21,089,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That a peer review committee shall be established to review medical payments and the type of service received by a disability compensation claimant: Provided further, That the District of Columbia shall not provide free government services such as water, sewer, solid waste disposal or collection, utilities, maintenance, repairs, or similar services to any legally constituted private nonprofit organization (as defined in section 411(5) of Public Law 100-77, approved July 22, 1987) providing emergency shelter services in the District, if the District would not be qualified to receive reimbursement pursuant to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, approved July 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.). Public Works Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia and leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles, $241,934,000 (including $227,983,000 from local funds, $3,350,000 from Federal funds, and $10,601,000 from other funds): Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for collecting ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and places of business: Provided further, That $3,000,000 shall be available for the lease financing, operation, and maintenance of two mechanical street sweepers, one flusher truck, five packer trucks, one front-end loader, and various public litter containers: Provided further, That $2,400,000 shall be available for recycling activities. Financing and Other Uses Financing and other uses, $454,773,000 (including for payment to the Washington Convention Center, $5,400,000 from local funds; reimbursement to the United States of funds loaned in compliance with An Act to provide for the establishment of a modern, adequate, and efficient hospital center in the District of Columbia, approved August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 896; Public Law 79-648); section 1 of An Act to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to borrow funds for capital improvem

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
(House of Representatives - November 12, 1997) Text of this article available as:
  • TXT
  • PDF
[Pages H10676-H10763] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 105-403) on the resolution (H. Res. 324) providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2607) 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, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 324 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 324 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2607) 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, with Senate amendments thereto, and [[Page H10677]] to consider in the House, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, a single motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and disagree to the Senate amendment to the title. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] is recognized for 1 hour. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, while considering the final appropriations bills, the Senate rolled the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill and the Foreign Operations appropriations bill into the D.C. appropriations bill and, therefore, created an omnibus appropriations bill. The House amendment we will consider tonight strikes all provisions out of the omnibus appropriations bill, except for the District of Columbia, and amends that bill with the recommendation of the House Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides for a single motion by the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, or his designee, to concur in the Senate amendment to the text, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, with the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report and disagree to the Senate amendment to the title. The rule further provides that the Senate amendments to the House bill and the motion are considered as read. The motion is debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. There is little argument that the District of Columbia is in bad shape. The city suffers from deteriorating infrastructure, high crime rates, a shrinking population, and poor services. We must take bold steps to reform the way this city operates so that it can again take its place among the great cities of the world. As a former mayor, I know the challenges that come with running a city. It will not be easy to reform, but we must start now. I was very supportive of the bill that originally passed in the House. I believe that it contains some tough language that will go a long way to changing the face of our Nation's Capital. The bill met with stiff resistance and has been replaced. This is a good rule. It allows us to debate D.C. appropriations as a single issue, rather than as part of an omnibus package. We need to take a step toward restoring some of the luster our Nation's Capital city has lost in recent years. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I look forward to the debate about the future of our Nation's Capital. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is late in the day and it is late in the session. We are now 43 days into fiscal year 1998 and it is high time that we finish our business for the year. With any luck, we will be able to finish the District of Columbia appropriations this evening, leaving only 1 other appropriations bill outstanding. The Republican majority has finally seen the light and has given up for the time being, at least, its desire to use the District and its residents as a grand experiment in Republican social engineering on school vouchers. As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is late in the day and it is late in the session. It is time for the Republican majority to govern. It is time to stop using appropriations to move a legislative agenda that is not supported by a majority of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the negotiating process on District of Columbia appropriations has resulted in creating a bill which is vastly superior to the product originally passed by 1 vote in the House. I will support this rule only because the bill passed by the Senate and the amendment which is now being recommended as a further amendment address the issues of providing the Federal payment to the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital, and not the Republican social agenda. It is unfortunate, however, that it has taken this long to reach this point. Mr. Speaker, because it is late, I will reserve the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]. (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me just note, I have further comments in my revisions, but I am happy we have gotten to this point. It has taken a long time. The city of Washington has had to borrow money during the time that we have not been able to move forward with the appropriation, but with a lot of work of people on both sides of the aisle we have come to the conclusion this evening that we have an appropriation bill that I am proud to support. I want to thank my ranking member of the authorizing committee, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], who have worked very closely with us on appropriations to bring this to where it is tonight. The city needs this money. We have an appropriations bill that I would urge all of my colleagues to support. Our Nation's capital desperately needs this budget bill to be enacted now. Failure to do so would have major negative consequences. Failure to pass this budget now would cause the District of Columbia to slide even further backward. Failure to pass this budget now would be reckless and tragic. This is especially so because this Congress and the last Congress have done so much to get the Nation's Capital on the right track. To defeat the bill at this point would risk doing irreparable harm to our fundamental goals of reform and revitalization of our Nation's Capital. It is wrong to gamble with the lives of millions in this region who depend on an orderly budget process. We all know of the D.C. Revitalization Act which passed this Congress as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Strong management reform measures, Medicaid changes and tax incentives were included as well in that enactment and in the equally Historic Tax Reform Act of 1997. To have enacted such significant reforms, and to see them signed by the President, is a legislative accomplishment we can all take pride in helping to achieve. With patience and perseverance the reforms we have enacted for the District of Columbia have begun to have their intended effect. We now have a rare opportunity, sanctioned by both Congress and the White House, to restructure and improve the complex relationship between the Federal Government and the Nation's Capital. But time is of the essence. And we are at a moment of truth. Many of the issues addressed in the D.C. Revitalization Act are particularly urgent and time sensitive. To take just one example, a Federal trustee must be up and running to help establish reforms in the District's prison system. Just last month the court-appointed monitor said of the medium-security facility at Lorton that ``it has deteriorated to a level of depravity that is unparalleled in its troubled history.'' It is tragic enough when Congress reaches an impasse in consideration of a budget for one of our executive departments. But if we are unable to enact a budget for the Nation's Capital, that real city which exists just beyond the monuments is placed at a grave risk of immediate harm. And when you consider that most of the District's budget consists of self-generated funds, it makes the spectacle of congressional delay even more difficult to explain. Some of us have differences with various sections of the bill before us. Many have reservations which I share. But I appeal to you, as chairman of the authorizing subcommittee for the District of Columbia, to join me in voting for this budget bill so we can give the Nation's Capital a chance to survive as a city. I am pleased that the Victims of Communism Relief Act of 1997 is incorporated in this bill and will become law. The agreement provides that Nicaraguans and Cubans who entered the United States prior to December 1, 1995, will be made eligible for lawful permanent residence provided they apply prior to April 1, 2000. [[Page H10678]] Guatemalans and Salvadorans, who filed for asylum prior to April 1, 1990, and members of the ABC class, will have their cases reviewed under the less onerous rules in existence before the 1996 Immigration Act [IIRIRA] went into effect. In addition, battered spouses and children in proceedings prior to April 1, 1997, will be processed under the pre-IIRIRA rules. Guatemalans and Salvadorans will have their adjustments offset by reductions in the diversity and unskilled--nonagricultural--worker programs, which will not exceed 5,000 in each annually. All pending approved petitions for unskilled worker visas will be permitted to adjust under the current 10,000 cap. Members of the defined categories of Central Americans--Salvadorans and Guatemalans--whose cases are under the jurisdiction of the post- April 1 rules, will have their claims for cancellation of removal adjudicated under the more generous standard of 7 years continuous residence and extreme hardship, not subject to the 4,000-person cap. All Guatemalans and Salvadorans who meet the eligibility requirements states above will be exempted from the stop time rule, as interpreted by the Board of Immigration Claims' N-J-B ruling. Individuals not within these categories will be subject to the stop-time rule. Refugees from the former Warsaw Pact nations will have their cases governed according to the same rules which will apply for Guatemalans and Salvadorans. Mr. Speaker, many Central Americans have made a positive impact in our community in northern Virginia. The inclusion of this legislation in the D.C. appropriation bill will bring a measure of justice to thousands who have fled oppression in their native land to seek the freedom and opportunity offered in this Nation. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I think it is an unfair rule, and this Congress should know why I think that way. I went to the Committee on Rules tonight to see if I could get an amendment ruled eligible for the floor which would have turned around an injustice which is in this bill. I think what Congress sees in this bill is what happens when legislators, people in Congress, make rules on appropriations bills. It is always a disaster when that happens, and it is too bad that this particular amendment on immigration, a situation that is so very direly needed in this country, was placed on an appropriations bill, and a very important appropriations bill, for the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia has been bandied about in this Congress. I think it is high time we put the kind of precedence and the kind of attention on this particular bill that it should receive. Now, while I do not oppose the District of Columbia's appropriations bill being passed, I do not oppose the Nicaraguans getting their amnesty on this bill, and I do not oppose the Central Americans getting their amnesty, but what I do reject is the idea that the Haitians in this country that came here under the same credible fear of persecution as the Nicaraguans and the Central Americans and the Cubans are now left out of this particular bill. I am being told that, number 1, the Haitians were never to be considered. They were not a part of the agreement. As a matter of fact, I have substantive proof to show that they were not a part of the agreement. We lobbied very hard to try to get them included. It is never too late for this Congress to do the right thing. But there is something that perplexes me, which is, why is it that always when communities of color come up in immigration, they are always overlooked or there is always some excuse as to why they were not in the original agreement? I am asking this Congress, why? That is why I am opposing this rule, because this rule is unfair. Why have Nicaraguans, Cubans, Guatemalans, and Salvadoreans, who will live next door to each other in some of our communities, one will get a green card and the others cannot. One could seek citizenship after 4 to 5 years; the others cannot. Is that fair? My answer is no, it is not fair. It is another step of unfairness in this country. The reason that it is so unfair is we allow it to happen. We allow these kinds of things to come in on an appropriations bill. We allow the unfairness to be so dominant in the kinds of decisions we make here. If we were fair, that amendment would have never passed the Senate, it would never have come over here. If we were fair, the Haitians would have been given the same time for amnesty as Nicaraguans and others. I have fought very hard on this floor, Mr. Speaker, for Cubans, for Hispanics, for Latinos in this country. I think it is a slap in the face to the Black Caucus and to the other caucuses which have stood so steadily behind all of the bills that the Cuban Members of this Congress brought here, yet we could not receive any support to include the Haitians. It is wrong, and I will always say it. It is wrong, and we should turn it around. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I also thank her for her commitment to this endeavor and for her leadership that she has demonstrated on behalf of those that she, myself, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown], and countless others in this Congress are supportive of receiving the same consideration as others have under this particular measure. Reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the rule. Like the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], said, I will support the ultimate bill because I feel that it is no more than fair to the District of Columbia that has been burdened in an equivalent manner, and in my view has not been treated as fairly as they should be. But all the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] sought in the Committee on Rules was an amendment that would allow for an up-or-down vote on whether or not the Haitian refugees, particularly those that came through Guantanamo, would receive the same consideration as everyone else. Neither the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] nor I take any back seat to supporting all of the efforts of those who we represent in south Florida. I support Nicaraguans, and I think that they should receive an amnesty that they have received. I support Central Americans, and I think that they should receive the amnesty that they are going to be able to apply for and receive. I even support Eastern Europeans and think that it is appropriate that this Nation, the beacon for freedom and fairness, would offer them an opportunity to seek amnesty under appropriate circumstances. However, I totally reject the notion that those that we made a commitment to, that we are not fair enough to continue our efforts to ensure that that commitment is kept. {time} 2315 Once again, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and will vote to reject the rule for the reason that she will reject it, in her efforts to make a simple amendment that asks for nothing but fairness. Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will say in the end that this is an unjust and unfair rule. It is a rule which overlooks the equalness and equality which we push in this country. Having supported every effort to bring about equality in this country for immigrants and everyone else, I reject any statement. That is why I am voting against the rule. I call on the Members of this Congress who believe in fairness and equity for all immigrants, not just one particular set, to reject this rule, to send a message to the Republicans that they do not choose certain immigrants because they go by the same ethnicity as they do to include in a bill. It is not fair, and it will show an unfairness for the majority party. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of working on the education provisions of this legislation. I would like to personally thank the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Charles Taylor, and ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Jim Moran, who not only listened but was cooperative and worked very closely with the committee. I would also like to thank and I think D.C. and this body owes a great [[Page H10679]] deal of gratitude to Gen. Julius Becton, who has taken on almost an impossible task of cutting through not only economic problems but the political problems of D.C. schools. He has worked tirelessly in changing some of the rules and in helping children in the District. I would like to commend General Becton. Mr. Speaker, what education provisions are in the bill? It provides $3.3 million for public charter schools, that is good within this bill, but it also adds money for the public schools. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] fought for these provisions along with Republicans, and we find that it is in the best interests and will help. There is a technical improvement to the D.C. charter schools. There are about four of them. I will not belabor them, but I think these provisions will actually help. It was done on a bipartisan basis, both Republicans and Democrats. The National Education Association will finally pay its fair share of taxes, which is about $1.1 million a year that will go to help D.C. schools. We helped with that. One of the things that I am saddened by, Mr. Speaker, is that union bosses once again prevailed in stopping and preventing the aid to children in schools within D.C. by waiving Davis-Bacon. The average age of D.C. schools, the average age, is 86 years old, Mr. Speaker, 86 years. The roofs were so bad, schools were delayed. The fire codes are so bad that it was not even placed in the fire department, it is in the hands of a judge. Yet, union bosses prevented saving up to 25 percent on school construction by giving the school construction authority the ability to waive Davis-Bacon. Once again, the unions chose to line their pockets rather than come to the aid of children. I think that is sickening, Mr. Speaker. It is something that we need to change. The D.C. Student Opportunities Scholarship, which is not included in this, which my friend said is a Republican strategy or social strategy, is going to be in a freestanding bill to where he can vote up or down on it. Only a liberal would say that he does not want to help education and children have a choice of where they could go. There is no pay raise for properly credentialed teachers, which we felt was important. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to the gentleman from California who just spoke, when he was praising General Becton, he used the term, ``I would like to command General Becton.'' I think he may want to correct the Record. I suspect he meant ``commend General Becton.'' I might like to command him, but I note that he may want to catch that in the Record. Either way, I agree with the gentleman that General Becton is doing a fine job in a very difficult situation with the D.C. school system, and this bill helps that situation. It will be a long time before we correct all of D.C.'s problems, but certainly this is a step forward. That is why I rise in support of this rule. I do not disagree with the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] about the fact that Haitian refugees should get fair, comparable treatment to Central American and Cuban refugees. She argues about something that is not in the rule that she wants in the rule. I do not disagree with the issue, but I do think that this rule should be supported. We need to get on with the business of providing the necessary funds for the District of Columbia. They are facing a financial crisis. So let us get this rule passed. I find nothing objectionable in it as it pertains to the District of Columbia, and I will address the substance of the bill when the bill is brought up. I do urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart. Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the legislation on immigration that is included in this appropriations bill, I think it is important to point out that it is historic. It is in the great generous and compassionate tradition of the United States. The process behind the Central American relief legislation began in July of this year, in June and July of this year, after a commitment by President Clinton to the Central American Presidents during a summit in Costa Rica, and also a commitment by the Speaker of the House, Speaker Gingrich, after a visit to south Florida, precisely commenting on this issue. The legislation was drafted after serious consultation with the National Security Council and the Department of Justice. It was drafted to prevent the deportation of Nicaraguans and also of Guatemalans and Salvadorans, known as the ABC class, that were denied suspension of deportation by the retroactivity of the Immigration Reform Act that was passed last year. I want to point out, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that passage of this language, which is included in the District of Columbia appropriations bill, will not in any way hinder efforts to seek similar relief for Haitian refugees in other legislative measures. Last week, Senator Moseley-Braun in the Senate put a hold on the Senate D.C. appropriations bill because of the Haitian issue. She lifted her objection after the Attorney General and the White House agreed to provide administrative relief to the Haitian community while Congress considers a legislative remedy. The agreement reached between the Senator and the administration provides that the President will authorize the Attorney General to temporarily suspend the deportation of Haitians while Congress considers legislation to provide relief to the Haitian community in the United States. The bill has already been introduced in the Senate by Senator Bob Graham and Senator Connie Mack and others, including Senator Abraham, and a House companion bill has been dropped, to my understanding, by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. I have agreed to be a cosponsor of that bill, as I have always been a cosponsor of legislation by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] on this issue of our Haitian brothers and sisters. Mr. Speaker, I will request and insist upon hearings not only in the Senate on this legislation but in the House as well and on the basis of this White House agreement of Senator Moseley-Braun where she lifted her hold and the Senate passed the D.C. appropriations bill by voice vote. Mr. Speaker, I support, as I always have, the efforts to seek justice for our Haitian brothers and sisters. My distinguished friend, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], knows that. I will continue doing so. So as I recommit to do all I can to help our Haitian friends, I seek justice and commend the Speaker and all of those who have been involved, Mr. Smith, as well as the leaders in the Senate, Senator Abraham and Senator Mack and Senator Bob Graham and others, who have worked on this. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, am I understanding the gentleman correctly that we have his commitment that he will push to ensure that the Haitians receive the same consideration that the Nicaraguans have? Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Yes. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman is answering it, would he be so kind as to tell me, was it not equally possible that we could have included the Haitians in this particular measure? Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The gentleman is aware of the fact that in the negotiations that led to this legislation, Mr. Smith made what I consider to have been a very good faith offer with regard to the Haitians. The gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] was of the opinion that that was not something that should be finalized in the terms that were offered. But yes, my commitment is there, my distinguished friend, with regard to pushing this issue further. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for a vote, a positive vote, on the rule on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, this is the last appropriation out. By all rights, it should have been the first, considering the [[Page H10680]] condition of the District of Columbia and considering that there is only a token amount of Federal funds. I am coming to this floor to ask permission to spend my own money. I do not know what the rest of the Members would do if they had to do this. This is a caboose appropriation held up in the Senate, as Members have heard, over an issue completely unrelated. I could not be more in sympathy with the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. If my appropriation has been treated regrettably, she has been treated most unfairly, and I pledge to her that I will do all in my power to monitor this matter to see that the compromise that has been achieved is carried out and to see that full justice is done in legislation when we return. This bill has been cleansed of the issues that would have gotten a veto. Some of them would have been micromanagement of the District. Others would have been ideological issues. We have gone from micromanaging the District to micromanaging the Control Board. We have to stop that. The Control Board is not above criticism, and I have been among its critics, but the fact is that these are five distinguished people working for no pay who are trying to do an almost impossible job. We ought to reinforce them, unless they get way off the mark. We are not close enough to take what they do and unravel it dollar by dollar. All sides need to talk and negotiate before the appropriation period, rather than waiting for the appropriation to try to reform the District of Columbia. If Members want to have meaningful participation in the reform and restructuring of the District, let the Committee on Appropriations, the subcommittee, the authorizing subcommittee, the Control Board, and the District sit down and work out their problems before they get to this floor. Home Rule? Yes, that is one reason this bill must be supported, because it has the support of the District of Columbia, which worked hard to please the Congress in what it has achieved, but it also must be supported because this bill is, in fact, an efficient and reliable way to move the District forward. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen]. Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues, the gentlewoman from south Florida, Mrs. Carrie Meek, and the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Alcee Hastings, have done a formidable job of defending our community, especially the immigrant community, after their many years of dedicated service. All of us in the south Florida congressional delegation have the great privilege of representing various pockets of the immigrant community, and we try to help all of those communities whenever we can. I commend my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], for their leadership. It is because of their firm belief in fairness that my other colleague, the gentleman from Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], and I are going to join with them in working with our Florida Senators, Connie Mack and Bob Graham, to get fair treatment for the Haitians. In January when we come back to debate the new bills, we will continue working with our south Florida colleagues and our Florida Senators to see that the Guantanamo Haitians get the fair treatment that they deserve. I visited the Guantanamo base in Cuba while the Haitians were there, I know of their plight. It was a great honor for me when I first came to Congress to represent the community of little Haiti. It is a wonderful law-abiding community, and I have supported and will continue to support the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] in cosponsoring her bill. We have worked with the White House to work out this compromise that no deportations will be taking place while the legislation moves through the proper procedures in the House and the Senate. {time} 2230 However, the bill before us now does save many thousands of lives from the immigration limbo that they are facing, the deportation that has been dividing many communities. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and move this legislation forward, which is going to help so many immigrants. And we look forward to continuing in the new session in supporting other immigrants as well. As an immigrant myself, as a political refugee who sought freedom and democracy, I know what this country stands for, and I know the beliefs that have brought us here still linger in our hearts. And we practice them every day. So I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this come true. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the time remaining on each side. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 19 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] has 181/2 minutes remaining. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters]. Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a rather unfortunate situation. This is the most cynical kind of public policy-making that I have ever witnessed. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Haitians would have been left out from consideration. As I understand, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reports that, as of September 30, 1996, applications for asylum were pending for about 18,000 Haitians, 21,000 Nicaraguans, 118,000 Guatemalans, and 191,000 Salvadorans. How can they just drop the Haitians? It does not make good sense, and then they place it on the D.C. appropriations, where we are desperate to try and get a little justice for the District of Columbia, and they pit people against each other in the most unfair way. There is no rational reason for it. They should not put the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] in the position of standing up here asking for a no vote on the rule for the District of Columbia, when they know how desperate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] is. As a matter of fact, if they had any decency at all, they would pull this rule from the floor and go back and put the Haitians in. These Haitians were promised. I have got letters here from Haitians whose parents were killed right before their eyes. They are seeking asylum because they were under political massacre from the Haitians down there. And my colleagues would stand here and allow this situation to develop. This is unconscionable. It is unreasonable. It is unfair. It is unjust. It is unkind. It is everything that I can think of when I look at what they are doing. I cannot stand hear and say, do not support the D.C. rule. At the same time, we have these Representatives from Florida who are sitting here in pain because of what they are doing. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] and the rest of my colleagues who negotiated this deal, they should stand up like men and women and undo it now and do the right thing. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member very much for his kindness. Let me, first of all, thank the hard work of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for working so hard on the D.C. appropriations bill and particularly the charter school effort that I think will help our children in the District of Columbia. I heard a colleague mention the need for money for construction and accusing unions of taking monies out of the children of the District of Columbia. If my Republican colleagues had voted for the $5 billion infrastructure addition to the budget, we might have had those dollars for the D.C. schools. More importantly, I think it should be well known that this is D.C. money and not our money, and all we are doing is tying it up and not spending it. Let me move quickly to the Haitian question, because I join my colleagues in a great deal of dissatisfaction with the committee for not allowing this particular amendment of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] to be drawn to this rule that would allow the Haitians to be included in the privilege [[Page H10681]] and waiver of allowing them to stay and continue their process of application. This is, of course, a discriminatory process, even though I applaud the White House and Attorney General for the administrative process that will allow them to stay in and the hearings of my colleague the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] and the work of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. As a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I think this is an unpardonable sin. The Haitians deserve the same kind of freedom and opportunity that other immigrants deserve when they come to this country. Now 11,000 immigrants will be separated from their families. Who is to say that there is not persecution in Haiti as there is in Nicaragua and Guatemala? I support what has happened to the Nicaraguans' and the Guatemalans' country for freedom. We always have supported this in a combined effort to support those who come here to this country for freedom. My question to my colleagues is, how can you deny this to Haitians? How can you stand up here and separate immigrants who have come here for freedom? I would ask that this rule be denied and voted down, not because I do not support the District of Columbia, because it is their money, but because they do not even allow the immigrants that are Haitians that come to this country for freedom to get the same privileges of those that are getting the privilege. I ask for my colleagues to consider the disparate treatment being given to Haitians in this country. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my colleague the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] how many speakers he has left. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at this point, we have one speaker remaining. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any more speakers, so I reserve my time. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for yielding me the time. I, too, am one who is pleased that there was progress with the D.C. appropriations bill. It is certainly true that the District of Columbia needs the funding. I wish I could stand here and tell my colleagues that we should pass this rule and get on with our business, but I cannot because of many of the reasons that have been stated by some of my colleagues, especially from Florida, with regard to a particular provision which was added to this appropriation bill that really does not have anything to do with D.C. appropriations but, nonetheless, was added. Let me quote for my colleagues from a letter of the President of the United States of November 4, 1997, where he said with regard to the issue affecting immigrants, principally from Central America and the Haitian community, that he was trying, through the legislation he had provided Congress to work on, he was seeking fair and equitable treatment for these individuals from these countries in Central America and Haiti. He goes on to say, ``I am concerned, however, that this legislation, unlike my original proposal, inappropriately distinguishes among nationals from different countries, including those from Central America. It requires continued retroactive application of certain provisions in the 1996 immigration law and does not allow for an adequate transition to the law's new rules. Accordingly, the Congress should provide for a fair resolution of these issues.'' He goes on to say, ``In addition, I strongly urge the Congress to provide to Haitians treatment similar to that provided to Central Americans.'' What the President was speaking of was the change from his legislation that came to Congress and was being sponsored by certain Members in the House and the Senate and what is now in this appropriation bill, which is much different from what the President first proposed. As Cardinal Law from Massachusetts said, ``We are putting these immigrants through `emotional torture'.'' Cardinal Law goes on to say, ``The United States must provide for equitable treatment to Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans, as well as justice for Haitians, in emerging immigration legislation.'' Mr. Speaker, what a number of us are saying here today is that, when we had a chance to put forth equity, when we had a chance to right the wrongs of last year's immigration law, when we had a chance to show that we respect and dignify people who come to this country to escape persecution and to start a new life, we failed. We failed because we were able to do a great amount for some, and I am very pleased that the Nicaraguans will have a chance to say that they will receive amnesty, but we did not do it for any other Central American constituency similarly situated. The Salvadorans and the Guatemalans are in no different condition than the Nicaraguans, yet they are being treated differently. And the Haitians are completely shut out of this legislation. That is wrong. We could have cured this. We do not need to wait for future legislation to deal with this. We could have done it today, and we did not. That is the shame of this bill that we have before us. That is why, unfortunately, some of us have to stand here and say that it is better to vote no on the rule than yes. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers at this time. I ask, is the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] going to yield back her time at this point? Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am. Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 324, I call up the bill (H.R. 2607) 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 Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the Senate amendments is as follows: Senate amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the several departments, agencies, corporations and other organizational units of the Government for the fiscal year 1998, and for other purposes, namely: DIVISION A--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, to be effective as if it had been enacted into law as the regular appropriations Act, namely: TITLE I--FISCAL YEAR 1998 APPROPRIATIONS FEDERAL FUNDS Federal Payment for Management Reform For payment to the District of Columbia, as authorized by section 11103(c) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, $8,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999, which shall be deposited into an escrow account of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and shall be disbursed from such escrow account pursuant to the instructions of the Authority only for a program of management reform pursuant to sections 11101-11106 of the District of Columbia Management Reform Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33. Federal Contribution to the Operations of the Nation's Capital For a Federal contribution to the District of Columbia toward the costs of the operation of the government of the District of Columbia, $190,000,000, which shall be deposited into an escrow account held by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, which shall allocate the funds to the Mayor at such intervals and in accordance with such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate to implement the financial plan for the year: Provided, That these funds may be used by the District of Columbia for the costs of advances to the District government as authorized by section 11402 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33: Provided further, That not less than $30,000,000 shall be used by the District of Columbia to repay the accumulated general fund deficit. Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee Operations For payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee, $169,000,000 for the administration and operation of correctional facilities and [[Page H10682]] for the administrative operating costs of the Office of the Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33. Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee for Correctional Facilities, Construction and Repair For payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee for Correctional Facilities, $302,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which not less than $294,900,000 is available for transfer to the Federal Prison System, as authorized by section 11202 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33. Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Criminal Justice System (Including Transfer of Funds) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, $108,000,000 for payment to the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia for operation of the District of Columbia Courts, including pension costs: Provided, That said sums shall be paid quarterly by the Treasury of the United States based on quarterly apportionments approved by the Office of Management and Budget, with payroll and financial services to be provided on a contractual basis with the General Services Administration, said services to include the preparation and submission of monthly financial reports to the President and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives; of which not to exceed $750,000 shall be available for establishment and operations of the District of Columbia Truth in Sentencing Commission as authorized by section 11211 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for an additional amount, $43,000,000, for payment to the Offender Supervision Trustee to be available only for obligation by the Offender Supervision Trustee; of which $26,855,000 shall be available for Parole, Adult Probation and Offender Supervision; of which $9,000,000 shall be available to the Public Defender Service; of which $6,345,000 shall be available to the Pretrial Services Agency; and of which not to exceed $800,000 shall be transferred to the United States Parole Commission to implement section 11231 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS OPERATING EXPENSES Division of Expenses The following amounts are appropriated for the District of Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically provided. Governmental Direction and Support Governmental direction and support, $105,177,000 (including $84,316,000 from local funds, $14,013,000 from Federal funds, and $6,848,000 from other funds): Provided, That not to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation for official purposes: Provided further, That any program fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of the District of Columbia: Provided further, That no revenues from Federal sources shall be used to support the operations or activities of the Statehood Commission and Statehood Compact Commission: Provided further, That the District of Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission to Statehood from its own locally-generated revenues: Provided further, That $240,000 shall be available for citywide special elections: Provided further, That all employees permanently assigned to work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid from funds allocated to the Office of the Mayor. Economic Development and Regulation Economic development and regulation, $120,072,000 (including $40,377,000 from local funds, $42,065,000 from Federal funds, and $37,630,000 from other funds), together with $12,000,000 collected in the form of BID tax revenue collected by the District of Columbia on behalf of business improvement districts pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996, effective May 29, 1996 (D.C. Law 11- 134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the Business Improvement Districts Temporary Amendment Act of 1997 (Bill 12-230). Public Safety and Justice Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease of 135 passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement only, including 130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use, without regard to the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year, $529,739,000 (including $510,326,000 from local funds, $13,519,000 from Federal funds, and $5,894,000 from other funds): Provided, That the Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Department of Fire and Emergency Medical Services of the District of Columbia is authorized to replace not to exceed five passenger-carrying vehicles annually whenever the cost of repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds three-fourths of the cost of the replacement: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be available from this appropriation for the Chief of Police for the prevention and detection of crime: Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate on efforts to increase efficiency and improve the professionalism in the department: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order 86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Metropolitan Police Department's delegated small purchase authority shall be $500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia government may not require the Metropolitan Police Department to submit to any other procurement review process, or to obtain the approval of or be restricted in any manner by any official or employee of the District of Columbia government, for purchases that do not exceed $500,000: Provided further, That the Mayor shall reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for expenses incurred in connection with services that are performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting payment in advance for emergency services involved: Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn officers, with leave for a 50 officer attrition: Provided further, That no more than 15 members of the Metropolitan Police Department shall be detailed or assigned to the Executive Protection Unit, until the Chief of Police submits a recommendation to the Council for its review: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be available for inmates released on medical and geriatric parole: Provided further, That not less than $2,254,754 shall be available to support a pay raise for uniformed firefighters, when authorized by the District of Columbia Council and the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, which funding will be made available as savings achieved through actions within the appropriated budget: Provided further, That, commencing on December 31, 1997, the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, quarterly reports on the status of crime reduction in each of the 83 police service areas established throughout the District of Columbia: Provided further, That funds appropriated for expenses under the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act, approved September 3, 1974 (88 Stat. 1090; Public Law 93-412; D.C. Code, sec. 11-2601 et seq.), for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in each fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 1975: Provided further, That funds appropriated for expenses under the District of Columbia Neglect Representation Equity Act of 1984, effective March 13, 1985 (D.C. Law 5-129; D.C. Code, sec. 16-2304), for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in each fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 1985: Provided further, That funds appropriated for expenses under the District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986, effective February 27, 1987 (D.C. Law 6-204; D.C. Code, sec. 21-2060), for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in each fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 1989. Public Education System Public education system, including the development of national defense education programs, $672,444,000 (including $530,197,000 from local funds, $112,806,000 from Federal funds, and $29,441,000 from other funds), to be allocated as follows: $564,129,000 (including $460,143,000 from local funds, $98,491,000 from Federal funds, and $5,495,000 from other funds), for the public schools of the District of Columbia; $8,900,000 from local funds for the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; $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 one 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 Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees of the District of Columbia 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 Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees reports to Congress as provided in the preceding proviso, the Emergency Transitional Education 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 to assistance provided to other District of Columbia public schools: Provided further, That the Emergency Transitional [[Page H10683]] Education 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; $74,087,000 (including $37,791,000 from local funds, $12,804,000 from Federal funds, and $23,492,000 from other funds) for the University of the District of Columbia; $22,036,000 (including $20,424,000 from local funds, $1,158,000 from Federal funds, and $454,000 from other funds) for the Public Library; $2,057,000 (including $1,704,000 from local funds and $353,000 from Federal funds) for the Commission on the Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That the public schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use in the driver education program: Provided further, That not to exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for the President of the University of the District of Columbia, and $2,000 for the Public Librarian shall be available from this appropriation for official purposes: Provided further, That not less than $1,200,000 shall be available for local school allotments in a restricted line item: Provided further, That not less than $4,500,000 shall be available to support kindergarten aides in a restricted line item: Provided further, That not less than $2,800,000 shall be available to support substitute teachers in a restricted line item: Provided further, That not less than $1,788,000 shall be available in a restricted line item for school counselors: Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the education of nonresidents of the District of Columbia at the University of the District of Columbia, unless the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia adopts, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, a tuition rate schedule that will establish the tuition rate for nonresident students at a level no lower than the nonresident tuition rate charged at comparable public institutions of higher education in the metropolitan area. Human Support Services Human support services, $1,718,939,000 (including $789,350,000 from local funds, $886,702,000 from Federal funds, and $42,887,000 from other funds): Provided, That $21,089,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That a peer review committee shall be established to review medical payments and the type of service received by a disability compensation claimant: Provided further, That the District of Columbia shall not provide free government services such as water, sewer, solid waste disposal or collection, utilities, maintenance, repairs, or similar services to any legally constituted private nonprofit organization (as defined in section 411(5) of Public Law 100-77, approved July 22, 1987) providing emergency shelter services in the District, if the District would not be qualified to receive reimbursement pursuant to the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, approved July 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.). Public Works Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia and leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles, $241,934,000 (including $227,983,000 from local funds, $3,350,000 from Federal funds, and $10,601,000 from other funds): Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for collecting ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and places of business: Provided further, That $3,000,000 shall be available for the lease financing, operation, and maintenance of two mechanical street sweepers, one flusher truck, five packer trucks, one front-end loader, and various public litter containers: Provided further, That $2,400,000 shall be available for recycling activities. Financing and Other Uses Financing and other uses, $454,773,000 (including for payment to the Washington Convention Center, $5,400,000 from local funds; reimbursement to the United States of funds loaned in compliance with An Act to provide for the establishment of a modern, adequate, and efficient hospital center in the District of Columbia, approved August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 896; Public Law 79-648); section 1 of An Act to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to borrow funds for capita

Comments

Tips