[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 29, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 29, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
WAIVING CERTAIN POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST H.R. 4649, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
    APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995, AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPPLEMENTAL 
                APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT, 1994

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 466 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 466

       Resolved, That all points of order against consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4649) making appropriations of 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, 1995, and for other 
     purposes, are waived. During consideration of the bill, all 
     points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oberstar). The gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Gordon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. I yield the customary 
30 minutes, for the purpose of debate only, to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier]. Pending that, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. GORDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 466 is an open rule which 
provides for the consideration of H.R. 4649, the District of Columbia 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.
  The rule waives all points of order for violations of clause 2 of 
rule XXI against all provisions in the bill. Clause 2 of rule XXI 
prohibits legislation and unauthorized appropriations in a general 
appropriations bill.
  All points of order are waived against consideration of the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XXI which requires committee 
hearings be printed and available to Members for at least 3 calendar 
days prior to House consideration.
  Finally, the rule waives points of order against consideration of the 
bill for violating section 302(F) of the Budget Act. The Appropriations 
Committee adopted an amendment which exceeded the subcommittee's 602(B) 
allocation by $10 million. Chairman Dixon will offer an amendment to 
strike that section of the bill and correct this violation.
  I want to compliment Chairman Julian Dixon and ranking Republican 
James Walsh and their staff for all of their hard work. Each year the 
subcommittee must address varied and difficult issues within the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction and provide funding for the District of 
Columbia's departments and programs, all with increasingly limited 
resources.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt this open rule.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule because of the 
principle that seems to have been shoved aside by the Democrat 
leadership and a majority of the members of our Committee on Rules. 
That principle is, very simply, fairness. If it is appropriate to waive 
points of order against all or part of an appropriations bill, then 
amendments to all or parts of the appropriations bill should be granted 
the same treatment. This rule provides a blanket waiver of rule XXI 
prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in a 
general appropriations bill.
  Yet when the ranking minority member of the District of Columbia 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], asked our 
Committee on Rules to grant his amendment the same treatment given to 
the bill, he was told that only Democrat chairmen can operate outside 
the rules of the House. Incredibly, the amendments that Mr. Walsh 
sought to have debated are based on recommendations by the General 
Accounting Office in response to a request by the chairman of the 
District of Columbia Committee and his counterpart on the Committee on 
Appropriations for information on the financial status of the District 
of Columbia Government. That report concludes that the city is in such 
a financial state of disarray that when astronomers thought they 
discovered a black hole in space, their telescopes were actually 
pointed at the city treasury.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriators have been coming to the Committee on 
Rules and asking to waive clause 2 of rule XXI so often that they refer 
to these waivers as routine. The reality is that our budget process is 
broken and the House leadership continues to do business as if nothing 
is wrong.
  The authorizing committees do not seem to legislate anymore; much of 
it is done right here in these appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, we have reached the point where ignoring rules of the 
House has become standard operating procedure. The authorizing 
committee chairmen bypassed the deliberative process that we once 
called the committee system and they cut their deals with the 
Appropriations Committee. Then the Rules Committee structures a rule 
that conveniently shuts out virtually every Member of the House from 
participating in major legislative decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring this House of Representatives out of 
the dark ages; it is time to reform the convoluted budget process; it 
is time to reform the stifling bureaucracy that exists in this 
institution.
  The leadership may be unwilling to move this institution forward, but 
at least we can restore some semblance of fairness to the legislative 
process, if we simply defeat this rule.

  Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed 
  Rule to H.R. 4649, District of Columbia Appropriations, Fiscal Year 
                      1995, Tuesday, June 28, 1994

       1. Walsh (NY) No. 1--An amendment to establish a separate 
     account from the federal payment designated for the city's 
     pension fund. Vote (Rejected 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Bonior, 
     Gordon. Not Voting: Frost, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.
       2. Walsh (NY) No. 2--An amendment to prohibit the city from 
     offering 2 cola's for police & fire pensioners; and No. 3 an 
     amendment to require the mayor to develop a new pension plan 
     for prospective employees. Vote (Rejected 4-5): Yeas--
     Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Bonior, Gordon. Not Voting: Frost, Hall, Wheat, 
     Slaughter.
       3. Adoption of Rule--Vote (Adopted 5-4): Yeas--Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Bonior, Gordon. Nays--Solomon, Quillen, 
     Dreier, Goss. Not Voting: Frost, Hall, Wheat, Slaughter.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again it seems that my friend from California's only consistency 
is inconsistency. On the one hand he says he wants an open rule; this 
is an open rule. But it is not good enough. Sometimes he says he wants 
a waiver. It seems that when he wants a waiver and he gets it, that is 
fair; but when he does not want a waiver or if he does want a waiver 
and does not get it, that is unfair. So it seems that fairness is 
determined by whether he gets what he wants every time.
  Make no question about it, this is an open rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GORDON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain this issue of fairness. We would not have 
made a request for any waivers whatsoever on Mr. Walsh's three 
amendments that I offered upstairs that did require waivers, if the 
bill itself that was coming out of the Appropriations Committee was 
not. We were not asking for any different treatment for Mr. Walsh than 
we are for the bill as it is treated in the way it has been submitted 
before us.
  So what we are saying is if it is fair for you, it should be fair for 
us too. That is the only concern that we have.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. GORDON. Once again, this is an open rule. When my friend from 
California wants waivers, then you need to have waivers or it is not 
fair. When my friend from California does not want waivers, then if you 
do not have waivers, it is not fair. So I think we need to make it very 
clear this is an open rule. I hope folks will understand that and vote 
for that accordingly.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. GORDON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I appreciate his thoughtful statement, and I would like to inquire of 
my friend if he would agree to waive, that is, to come down with a full 
open rule that would not provide protection for any parts of the bill 
coming out of the Appropriations Committee, I would be more than happy 
to not make the request for the three Walsh amendments that I submitted 
upstairs. Would my friend be agreeable to that?
  Mr. GORDON. I would be happy to address it if the gentleman would 
repeat it.
  Mr. DREIER. If my friend would further yield, I would like to state 
to my friend that we would be more than happy on this side to 
relinquish our request for the waiver on the three Walsh amendments 
that I submitted upstairs if the gentleman will insure that no parts of 
this rule, this bill that is coming down, the D.C. appropriations 
measure, are protected at all.
  Mr. GORDON. Once again, this is the rule that the gentleman wants on 
this one; on something else, the gentleman would want something else 
done. The fact of the matter is this is an open rule.
  Mr. DREIER. All we are asking for is fair treatment on both sides of 
the aisle here.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct.
  Mr. DREIER. Your California colleague?
  Mr. DIXON. No, I am referring to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  The fact of the matter is that an open rule refers to amendments and 
not to the content of the bill. But let us get to the content of the 
bill. There are waivers on the content of the bill. Who is the author 
of the waivers? Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh had five amendments. I went to the 
Committee on Rules and supported him on waiving points of order on two 
of them.
  I think that was reasonable. These were not the chairman's amendments 
that were put in the bill; these were Mr. Walsh's amendments. As it 
relates to the open rule, we do have an open rule and anyone can offer 
an amendment within the House rules. I do not know how--when the 
Republican ranking member has offered amendments and we asked that they 
be protected, but not all of them--how then you can say that there is 
any inequity in this situation.
  Mr. DREIER. If my friend from Tennessee would yield so that I might 
ask a question of the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. GORDON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has time of his own. I will yield mine. I 
assume that if we run out of time, the gentleman will yield some back. 
I know we will work the time situation out.
  I am happy to yield at this time.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If I could inquire of my friend from California: I understand there 
were a total of five amendments that were proposed here and that the 
gentleman accepted two of the five amendments. Was there a reason that 
the other three amendments could not have been incorporated?
  Mr. DIXON. If the gentleman would yield, in my judgment they were not 
good amendments for this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. The concern that I have, as my friend from Tennessee has 
raised in response to the issue of fairness which I brought up, this 
rule waives points of order against the bill in general. It seems to 
me, if we are going to do that on any aspect of the bill, we should 
treat all Members in an evenhanded way. That is all we are requesting.
  Mr. DIXON. If the gentleman would yield further, we can have this 
dialog and debate this issue. But it gets down to this: Mr. Walsh came 
to the Rules Committee and asked for a waiver of points of order so 
that he could offer on the floor three amendments he offered in our 
committee but were not adopted.

                              {time}  1330

  Those amendments had been turned down in the subcommittee, and--just 
let me finish; it is on our time--turned down in the full committee. I 
did not support his request for a waiver when we were before the Rules 
Committee. But I was not rigid about it. On two of them I said, ``I 
will go with you and support the waiver.''
  That is exactly where we are, no matter how much we discuss it and 
shape it in some other way. He had five amendments. Two of them I 
accepted. They would be subject to a point of order, but the committee 
thought they were good amendments.
  I asked the Rules Committee to ``Please protect them.''
  He is saying, ``What about the other 60 percent? It's unfair because 
you are not allowing me to offer them on the floor.''
  Now we can talk about it all day, but that is the sum and substance, 
and I think anyone looking at it will see that out committee and the 
Committee on Rules have been equitable on this issue.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in responding I will say to the gentleman 
that I will be happy to yield some time to him if it is necessary.
  Let me say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] that all we 
are asking for is fair treatment here. As my friend knows, 
appropriations bills are privileged resolutions which can come straight 
to the House floor, and under the operating rules of the House they 
should come directly to the House floor unless waivers are requested, 
and what we are saying is, you came before the committee and made that 
request for protection of your bill. All we're saying is that that same 
kind of courtesy should be extended on this side of the aisle to the 
ranking member of the committee, the Subcommittee on Appropriations.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, let me make very clear that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Walsh] is a valued Member, I am sure, of the 
committee, and I know of the House as a whole, and it is my 
understanding that he had a chance to offer these amendments both at 
the subcommittee and at the committee level. So, he has had an 
opportunity to offer these amendments, and once again, Mr. Speaker, let 
me make clear this is an open rule so that all matters that are 
relevant to this bill can be brought before this Chamber for 
amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
if I might, to respond briefly to the statement my friend has made. I 
simply want to say that because a Member has had an opportunity at the 
subcommittee level and at the full committee level, that should never 
preempt their right to have the full membership's consideration of a 
proposal that they might have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my very distinguished friend and 
classmate from Richmond, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am taking this time to alert the Members to a pair of 
motions I will offer during consideration of H.R. 4649. As soon as the 
bill is open for amendment, I will offer a motion for the Committee of 
the Whole to rise and report the bill back to the House with a 
recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken. If that motion is 
successful, I intend to offer a motion to refer the bill with 
instructions to the Appropriations Committee. The instructions will be 
to wait for the District government to revise its budget and then to 
report the bill back with an amendment to take into account the revised 
District budget.
  Last year the District government passed a revised fiscal year 1994 
budget during the congressional appropriations process. The House had 
already approved the original budget and we did not get to act on the 
revised budget until the conference report. That process is 
unacceptable because we perfected a meaningless bill and never got a 
chance to perfect the real one. The District government is already 
working to revise the budget that will be before us today. For example, 
I have a June 16, 1994, letter from the District announcing that it 
is currently revising the budget by $75 million simply because of the 
recent settlement with the retirement board. This revision should 
increase as the District figures out how to deal with the new court 
order to repair the 5,600 fire code violations in the schools before 
they can be opened in September. More changes will surely follow. We 
should simply wait for the District to complete it process. That is 
what my motions are intended to accomplish.

  To accomplish my purpose of sending the bill back to the 
Appropriations Committee for revision I must offer two separate 
motions. The first motion--to have the Committee of the Whole rise and 
recommend that the enacting clause be stricken is frequently used as a 
maneuver to secure more debate time. I will not be using the motion for 
that purpose. Rather, I hope to win that vote so that we will not go 
through the amendment process on this bill. As I have already pointed 
out, the amendment process is pointless since the District government 
is currently working on revising the budget that is in this bill.
  We have a significant amount of new information from the GAO report 
requested by the chairmen of the District Committee and the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on the District. The District Government 
needs time to review this report and act accordingly.
  I want to give the District government a reasonable opportunity to 
make its own choices and not have those decisions made by Congress and 
handed down to the District. In turn, we must not go forward with this 
budget until the District acts. We must not come to the end of this 
session facing a choice of this budget or no budget. We must have an 
alternative.
  If my motion for the Committee to rise is successful, I will offer 
another motion to refer the bill back to the Appropriations Committee. 
What I want the committee to do is wait for the District government to 
complete its budget revision process and then for the committee to 
consider that revision. After any committee amendments to the updated 
District budget, the committee will report the bill back to the House 
with an amendment revising the budget as necessary.
  This procedure is the only way in which this House will have the 
opportunity to examine, perfect, and work its will on the ultimate 
District budget. Any action that we take on this flawed bill will serve 
no useful purpose.
  I also want to take just a moment to respond to some of the comments 
of others on the action I am taking on this important issue. I have 
heard my actions described as a ploy to defeat the District budget. I 
am taking this action specifically so that we will not defeat the 
District's budget. The only ploy that I see in this process is the 
flawed spending plan the chairman and ranking Republican of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee received from the District just last night. 
I can assure everyone that this so-called new plan is being introduced 
only to confuse Members. Members must also understand that this plan 
which may be brought up in this debate has nothing to do with the 
fiscal year 1995 budget before us today. If justification cannot be 
found for the purported savings or revenues then we will be witnessing 
not a step forward in good faith but a leap backward into more 
unreality.
  I urge all Members to support my motions to send the bill back to the 
Appropriations Committee for further work, pending action by the 
District government which surely must be taken eventually.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon], chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I rise to serve notice to this 
body that I intend to resist the motions that will be offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley]. However, I would like to point 
out to the Members that the gentleman from Virginia has been very 
constructive in this debate and has kept me advised of what he intended 
to do, and I know he thinks his proposal is constructive. I just 
disagree with him and will make the case for my position on the merits 
at the appropriate time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair as to how much 
time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of Mississippi). The gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier] has 20 minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 6 minutes to the Member 
whose name has been mentioned throughout this day, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Walsh], the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia.
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, for 
protecting my interest in these amendments as regards our efforts 
before the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I appreciate the fact 
that it is an open rule, but we did, in fact, ask for the same waiver 
that the chairman of the subcommittee had asked for, and I do agree and 
admit that the chairman asked for a waiver to accept two of the 
amendments we had offered in committee. The difficulty was that the 
other three were very consistent with those first two amendments. But 
we were denied.
  During the general debate I will speak to the GAO report which shows 
clearly how desperate the District's condition is. The District's 
operating budget is not balanced, nor has it been balanced for the past 
2 years.
  Under this rule I would like to focus on the unfunded pension 
liability of the District of Columbia. Currently the Federal pension 
obligation of the District government is $4.4 billion underfunded. This 
is a monumental amount of money. The cost of this obligation to the 
District for 1995 is $300 million. Things have gotten so bad that the 
Mayor this year, in order to present a so-called balanced budget, 
decided to renege on the pension payments this year. This sent shock 
waves through the community and to the financial markets, and it scared 
the heck out of the pensioners. The Pension Board was forced to raid 
the fund to meet its commitment. Thus future pensioners will be denied 
the interest that would have accrued on that money.
  This was a terrible decision, but Ms. O'Connor, the Chief Financial 
Officer for the District, said it was a choice between funding the 
pension or maintaining the Metro System. What a terrible position they 
have put themselves in. And let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that in 
just 1991 the Congress gave the District an additional $100 million and 
allowed them to borrow an additional $300 million in 1991, 3 years ago, 
to get their fiscal house in order and set up a rainy-day fund.
  Well, the wolf is at the door again, just 3 years later, and neither 
the District nor the Congress is willing to make the tough decisions.
  We will hear today that we must pay homage to home rule, but the 
District must make its own decisions. But they have not, and they will 
not. Therefore, we must. Besides, the District government knows we will 
stand aside again and wait for them to make the hard decisions, which 
means that no decisions will be made.

  Mr. Speaker, under home rule and under the agreement, the law 
requires that the District present us with a balanced budget. They have 
not. The GAO report shows they have not. They ended 1993 short and will 
again in 1994 wind up short by over $58 million in their cash reserves. 
I refer to the GAO report, Financial Status for the District of 
Columbia, and I read this on page 13: ``The District estimated its cash 
balances would dip to $65 million by September of 1995.''
  This estimate assumed deferring a $74 million pension payment in 1995 
until 1996. However, the District entered into an agreement with the 
Pension Board to make all payments in 1995, which includes an 
additional $74 million payment. With an estimated $65 million in the 
fund prior to that agreement, that shows it will finish the year with 
at least a $9 million deficit. Part of that agreement with the Pension 
Board requires that the District pay them accrued interest and 
penalties amounting to another $13 million. They will end the year at a 
minimum of $22 million in deficit in cash funds.
  According to the GAO audit, the actual cash on hand at the end of 
1993 was a minus $31 million, and as forecasted in 1994, a minus $58 
million.
  The Washington Post reported just this week, based on this GAO 
report, that the District could conceivably wind up with a minus $200 
million shortage in 1995 and have to go to the U.S. Treasury to bail 
itself out.
  Mr. Speaker, I asked to be allowed to present several amendments that 
would make a positive impact on the pension and the budget. Chairman 
Dixon, to his credit, accepted two of them. The first amendment would 
appropriate $250,000 to audit the Pension Board, and the second would 
require the District to give us quarterly reports on spending and 
revenue projections. The Board asked for and received a waiver from the 
Committee on Rules. I did not.
  We asked for three amendments, first, to set aside $295 million to 
make sure the pension obligation would be met this year; second, to cut 
a double cost-of-living allowance from two a year down to one; and, 
third, to develop a new pension system for prospective hiring so that 
this obligation can be met. All were disallowed.
  The committee should be consistent and should have supported my 
request for a waiver. I say to my colleagues that the time has come for 
all good men and women to come to the aid of their Nation's Capital.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule, 
and I myself will vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to support the 
rule that is before us. It is a perfectly fair rule.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been much reference to the GAO report. The GAO 
report was commissioned by the two chairs of the appropriate committees 
and has laid the predicate at last for an appropriate action by the 
District and by the Congress.
  This is a precarious moment for the District, and I ask my colleagues 
to respect the appropriations process that has produced this rule and 
is finally producing action in the District.
  The District of course, has become fair game this year because of the 
possibility of insolvency. About the worst thing we could do to make it 
worse, of course, would be to attempt blind micromanagement from the 
Hill. It is a dangerous game. We do not have the full chessboard before 
us. I assure the Members that if we start manipulating the parts of the 
budget on the chessboard that most concern us, some of the pieces will 
fall off. Precipitous cuts or, for that matter, sending the budget back 
where it came from are examples of actions destined to take the 
District down.

                              {time}  1350

  For example, the District needs to restructure its government, not 
simply to cut its government. It does not need to slap together 
something on paper that will please the Congress.
  As we speak today, the City Council is holding hearings on the GAO 
report which, after all, was just issued within the past week or 10 
days. I have spoken with both the mayor and the chair of the city 
council and impressed upon them the seriousness of the situation from 
the point of view of Congress.
  I was pleased at how serious they took the situation and the report 
and am pleased that today, the first opportunity the council has had, 
it is itself holding public hearings on the GAO report, to which I 
expect the appropriate response.
  What will not get the appropriate response, what we cannot do during 
this budget period, is to somehow turn this situation on its head. This 
situation needs a deliberative process. That process begins with the 
GAO report. It continues with hearings in the city. It cannot be 
manufactured from the Congress. I ask my colleagues to support this 
rule in all fairness.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, actually I am very pleased that my friend 
from Culver City has joined us again and my friend from Tennessee. I 
would like to engage in a colloquy, if I might just for a moment, on 
this issue we were discussing earlier.
  We have spent a great deal of time talking about the waiver for these 
two amendments that were protected of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh]. Then I referred to the fact that three of them were not.
  I wondered if my friend might tell us how many other items were 
protected in this measure in all? We have talked about these three. I 
know we have blanket waivers for a number of provisions. I just 
wondered how many.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the gentleman the number. I can 
tell the gentleman the waivers that I joined in as it related to 
actions that we took. Two offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh], one offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], dealing 
with the wharf, and, at that point in time, one offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], which the gentleman from Tennessee 
has indicated, because of a scoring problem, I will in fact offer an 
amendment to strike.
  So there are basically three, two by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh] and one by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  But I would point out that the budget, as sent up to us, did have 
some requests from the District which really do not relate to our 
conversation nor did any harm.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand that really 
is a subjective assessment, that they did not do any harm. I will say 
in the name of fairness, our count over here, and I wanted to see if it 
meshed with yours, shows there are 51 items that are protected in this 
measure under the total provided to me by the ranking member of your 
subcommittee. You have referred to a couple of Democrat amendments, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] and the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Moran].
  All we are asking is that while we have had these two protected for 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], out of a total of 51, it seems 
to me we ought to maybe have 51, or, if we do it based on the breakup 
of the configuration of this House, a 60-40 ratio might be more 
balanced.
  It seems to me when there are 51 items in here that are protected, 
that it really is not fair, and that gets back to my opening statement.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield for a response, 
I am not sure that there are 51, but I would accept that. I do not 
think that is correct.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am using the report the gentleman 
submitted.
  Mr. DIXON. I accept that. But the real issue is how many waivers were 
made based on Members of Congress or the committee's request. Let me 
point out to the gentleman that the large majority, except for those 
three or four, are language that have been placed in the bill.
  Let me give an illustration of that. On page 21, line 16, section 
113, no part of this appropriation shall be used for publicity or 
propaganda purposes or implementation of any policy, including boycotts 
designed to support or defeat legislation before Congress or any State 
legislature.
  That is something that this body has accepted in the past, that they 
would not use money for propaganda or otherwise lobbying.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, just to say to 
argue that no Member has made this request, when in fact the chairman 
of the subcommittee has made this request to put these items in order 
here, it seems to me as we look at this, if you are going to continue 
to do this, why do we have an authorizing committee on which the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] has worked so diligently over the 
years, if all of these items are going to be taken care of in this 
appropriations process? It has not simply been three Members who made 
this request. The majority leadership of this committee has, maybe at 
the request of the city here, the District of Columbia, included these 
items. But, frankly, a Member has done it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], who has spent a lot of time thinking about and 
living in the District of Columbia when he is up here and not in 
Sanibel, FL.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, each year I rise with great regret during 
consideration of the District of Columbia appropriations bill--regret I 
feel for the lost opportunity the people of the District of Columbia 
have suffered because their local elected leaders and public officials 
have failed in their management of the Nation's Capital City.
  I am a true champion of home rule. I have a deep disappointment as a 
champion of home rule that after 20 years of home rule here, there is 
really only a worsening crisis of function after function of the city 
government.
  The headlines this past year have told an incredible story of 
corruption and fraud, mismanagement, abuse of privilege, inept 
leadership, and virtually criminal abuse of the public trust; and I'm 
not talking about Mayor Kelly's cosmetician. We had a scandal at the 
District of Columbia Housing Agency involving bribery and misuse of 
public housing funds at the same time as more than $1.3 million was 
spent for renovations at the Housing Agency. There is the ongoing 
financial crisis involving a dangerous shortfall in the District's 
budget--a crisis that has been detailed in an eye-opening GAO report 
which portends a Federal bailout in the near future and an imperiled 
pension fund. There were the scandals of District of Columbia police 
officers conspiring to assist a drug ring, corrections officers found 
guilty of accepting bribes and smuggling drugs, and the forced 
resignation of the city's director of campaign finance because of drug 
charges. Violent crime is up, child welfare and productivity are down, 
and the Nation's Capital continues to prove that it cannot effectively 
manage itself.

  Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, this House is asked to approve funding for 
the District of about $720 million--without any serious requirement for 
changes in the way this city is being run. We have a disastrous 
financial situation--and a city government that has bounced from one 
scandal to the next. Yet, when Mr. Walsh of New York sought, in good 
faith, to offer concrete measures to head off the financial crisis--he 
was shut out. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. For 20 
years we've been told it'll be better next year--turns up. It's time 
for the District to clean up its act and face the music.
  Chairman Dixon said we need to fix things. Well, no rule can fix what 
is wrong with the District of Columbia government. Frankly, this 
legislation does not fix it either, and that is why it should not be 
approved. This bill just shuffles money, another three-quarters of a 
billion dollars, on a problem that does not have a fix. No fix is even 
called for in this legislation.
  I am told if you compare with other cities, they have problems too. 
And, yes, they do, the large urban metropolitan areas. I am aware of 
that. The fact of the matter is, Congress has a very special 
relationship with the District of Columbia, and has a very special 
responsibility. It seems to me that if we have this special 
responsibility, and that is what the problem is with the District of 
Columbia, then Congress had better get to work and find out what the 
fix is right now, becasue we cannot just keep doing what we have been 
doing before.
  I am going to be offering cutting amendments to make a point. They 
certainly are not going to improve the situation. They may save the 
taxpayers some money.
  We had a vote here on statehood. It did not pass because statehood is 
not defensible. We are having a referendum right now on home rule, and 
that may not sustain, because that no longer may be defensible. 
Certainly wasting taxpayers' dollars is not defensible. I think the 
District has been told repeatedly, the management, the government, that 
they have got to shape up, and every year we are told it is going to 
get better, and every year it gets worse.
  Okay, where is the fix? It is not in this rule. It is not in this 
legislation. I suggest we go back to the drawing board and try and do 
what is right for our Nation's Capital.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Ennis, TX [Mr. 
Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time under 
consideration of H.R. 4649, the D.C. appropriations bill, I will offer 
an amendment to prevent any funds from being expended to enforce the 
Domestic partners Act that the District of Columbia passed in 1992.
  The Barton amendment is identical to an amendment that was offered 2 
years ago by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and last year by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook.] It passed in 1992 with 235 votes. 
It passed in 1993 with 251 votes. Had the committee seen fit to include 
the language in the pending legislation, there would not be a need to 
offer it as an amendment on the floor this year.
  However, the committee did not do that and so there is a need for 
this amendment. Under the D.C. Domestic Partners Act, there is a tax 
preference given to domestic partners, it allows homosexual marriages 
to be registered. It defines domestic partners as a homosexual couple, 
heterosexual couple living together and any roommate. The Barton 
amendment basically continues, if adopted, the language that has been 
approved by this House and the Senate the last 2 years. It is supported 
by the Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition, the Family 
Research Council and Traditional Values Coalition.
  I would strongly urge all Members to support the Barton amendment 
this year, when it is offered.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lincoln, NE [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I serve on the housing subcommittee of the Committee on Banking, 
Finance and Urban Affairs. I have been attempting to focus some 
attention upon an entity of the District of Columbia called the 
Department of Public and Assisted Housing. This is the housing 
authority for this District of Columbia in which we now are located.
  Since HUD has begun to describe troubled housing authorities in the 
late 1970's, DPAH has always been listed as one of the troubled housing 
authorities. HUD has recently declared it to be the most troubled or 
the worst housing authority in the United States of America.
  I gather that most of my colleagues have noticed something about the 
latest scandal that has racked DPAH, the latest one being the voucher 
problem. Some time ago, a special master was appointed to consider the 
problems of DPAH. The special master made the recommendation that Judge 
Steffen Graae should, in fact, put the housing authority into a 
receivership.
  This latest scandal that has racked this housing authority is not 
only a waste of taxpayers' funds, it is really hurting the people who 
can least afford to be hurt in our society, particularly in this city.
  To have to pay bribes to get housing vouchers, the routine practice 
at DPAH which apparently went on for years and years, is just 
outrageous. I do not know what we can do to move Judge Graae along, but 
it is a rare opportunity to take the floor on this relevant issue 
affecting an element in the District of Columbia's government, DPAH. 
This Member will continue pushing for action on DPAH through votes on 
this issue in the Banking subcommittee and committee. In addition, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like very much to see the problems of DPAH addressed 
somehow in the appropriation process in the future through this 
appropriations subcommittee.
  If Judge Graae is unwilling to act upon this special master's 
recommendation, then I think the Congress has a responsibility to put 
DPAH in receivership and to require a whole host of our necessary 
reforms.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to close.
  Mr. Speaker, we have just decided here that we are going to ask for a 
vote on the previous question. We have concluded that with 51 items 
that are protected in this measure, we should, in fact, have a real 
open rule to bring about the kind of fairness that I know my friend 
from Tennessee would like to have. I will ask my colleagues to vote to 
defeat the previous question and then I will insert an amendment which 
will simply ensure that this is an open rule without any protections 
whatsoever, whether they are for the majority Members or the items that 
we discussed from the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh]. It is the 
only way that we can bring about true fairness and an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In conclusion, let me just say that many of us have serious concerns 
about the management of the District of Columbia. I am certainly one of 
those Members here. So I think it is important that we get on and 
debate this bill and address these serious matters.
  At the risk of creating an echo in this chamber, let me say, once 
again, as my friend from California knows, this is an open rule. The 
fact of the matter is that all relevant amendment were allowed at the 
subcommittee level, debated, and voted upon. All relevant amendments 
were allowed at the committee level, introduced, debated, and voted 
upon. And all relevant amendments today on the House floor will be 
allowed, debated, and voted upon.
  This is an open rule. This is an open rule that is supported by the 
chairman of the authorizing committee, and I would request that this 
body approve this open rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I picked up this open rule that my friend has referred to. It is 
House Resolution 466. It is very brief. It makes no mention whatsoever 
of an open rule. All it does is waive points of order. So I would like 
to ask the gentleman, he about six times described this as a great open 
rule. All it does is waive points of order on 51 items protecting items 
that the majority has raised and just a couple of items that have been 
raised by the minority here. That is why I hope very much that we can 
vote to defeat the previous question to ensure that we will be able to 
have a true open rule and eliminate all of these items in here which 
are protected.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as my friend from 
California knows, and he frequently asks for an open rule, an open rule 
applies to an amendment process. All amendments that were relevant were 
allowed in this committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding to me. I would just like to engage in a colloquy with my good 
friend from California, who is a member of the Committee on Rules. 
First, I do not understand the rationale for turning down the previous 
question on an open rule.
  As I understand what the gentleman is saying, an open rule would not 
prohibit a Member from making a point of order. An open rule would 
allow the amendments that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, 
offered, and that were agreed to by our committee and that I am trying 
to protect through this rule to be struck on a point of order. It would 
not allow the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Walsh] to offer his 
amendments because they are still subject to a point of order.
  If I understand, and perhaps I do not understand it, that would be 
the situation.
  Finally, as it relates to the other 47 that the gentleman refers to, 
those are policy issues that both sides of the aisle agree with. They 
would be subject to a point of order.
  An open rule, as the gentleman is saying it, does not move us forward 
at all. It is counterproductive. I thought the gentleman from New York, 
[Mr. Walsh] wanted to have summary reports every quarter. I agree with 
that. But there may be Members here who do not want to move that far. 
It would mean that that would be struck on a procedural matter. I do 
not think that the member of the Committee on Rules wants to do that.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we need to move 
forward with this bill. This is the conclusion of the time. We need to 
move forward with this bill. I do not want to cut the gentleman off.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier] to conclude. Then we will move forward with this resolution.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I was simply going to respond to the 
questions raised by my friend, the gentleman from Culver City, CA [Mr. 
Dixon] and say that it is under the standard rules of the House that 
the open amendment process is in order. In light of that, there is no 
necessity to go to the Committee on Rules whatsoever, if it were not 
for the protection of these 51 items.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment that I hope to offer when we defeat the 
previous question simply strikes all after the resolving clause and 
inserts in lieu thereof nothing. Basically, this is not necessary 
whatsoever, because this rule says nothing about an open amendment 
process. All it does is provide waivers protecting items that have been 
raised by the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and urge a no 
vote on the previous question. The material referred to is as follows:

        House Resolution 466--An Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof, nothing.


               changes in the application of existing law

       Pursuant to Clause 3, rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, the following statements are submitted 
     describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill 
     which might be construed, under some circumstances, as 
     directly or indirectly changing the application of existing 
     law.
       1. Under ``Governmental Direction and Support'', there is 
     language which provides that program fees collected from the 
     issuance of bonds or other debt instruments shall be 
     available for the payment of expenses of the District's debt 
     management program. Section 490 of the Home Rule Charter 
     (Public Law 93-198, as amended) authorizes the District 
     government to issue revenue bonds for a number of specified 
     purposes and was amended by Public Law 95-218 specifically to 
     enable the District government to act as a conduit for the 
     issuance of revenue bonds for private colleges and 
     universities. This language will allow the District 
     government to be reimbursed for the costs of issuing bonds on 
     behalf of third-party beneficiaries.
       2. The bill includes language under ``Governmental 
     Direction and Support'' appropriating funds to pay legal, 
     management, investment and other fees and administrative 
     expenses of the District of Columbia Retirement Board. 
     Section 121(f)(1) of the District of Columbia Retirement and 
     Reform Act (Public Law 96-122) states that all administrative 
     expenses incurred by the Board are to be paid out of funds 
     appropriated for such purposes. The language recommended 
     by the Committee appropriates the total amount required 
     for the operation of the Board and specifies that the 
     total amount is to be from the investment income of the 
     pension funds. The language also clarifies that all 
     expenses of the Board are to be paid from this 
     appropriation. A requirement for quarterly reports as well 
     as timely submission of budget data and audit information 
     is also included in the language.
       3. The bill includes language under ``Economic Development 
     and Regulation'', requiring that any profits associated with 
     the operations of the District of Columbia Housing Finance 
     Agency be used to reimburse the general fund for the costs 
     involved in issuing mortgage revenue bonds. The language also 
     provides that upon commencement of debt service payments such 
     payments shall be deposited into the general fund.
       4. Under ``Public Safety and Justice'', language provides 
     an exemption for two classes of passenger motor vehicles from 
     31 U.S.C. 1343(c) which states, in part, that:
       (c)(1) Except as specifically provided by law, an agency 
     may use an appropriation to buy a passenger motor vehicle 
     (except a bus or ambulance) only at a total cost (except 
     costs required only for transportation) that

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (C) is not more than the maximum price established by the 
     agency having authority under law to establish a maximum 
     price; and
       (D) is not more than the amount specified in a law.
       The classes of motor vehicles exempted from the price 
     ceiling are vehicles used for police, fire fighting and fire 
     prevention activities. Because of the special requirements 
     for those types of vehicles the costs exceed the maximum set 
     for passenger motor vehicles for regular use.
       5. Language is included under ``Public Safety and Justice'' 
     authorizing the Mayor to reimburse the National Guard for 
     expenses incurred in connection with emergency services 
     performed by the Guard at the request of the Mayor. The 
     language also provides that the availability of these funds 
     is to be considered as constituting payment in advance for 
     the emergency services involved.
       6. Language included under ``Public Safety and Justice'' 
     provides that funds appropriated for expenses under the 
     Criminal Justice Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-412) for fiscal 
     year 1995 shall be available for obligations incurred under 
     that Act in each fiscal year since inception of the program 
     in fiscal year 1975. This language is necessary due to the 
     long time lag, for various reasons, between the time 
     attorneys are appointed and the time vouchers are presented 
     to the District for payment.
       7. Language under ``Public Safety and Justice'' provides 
     that funds appropriated for expenses under the District of 
     Columbia Neglect Representation Equity Act of 1984 shall be 
     available for obligations incurred under that Act in each 
     fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 1985.
       8. Language under ``Public Safety and Justice'' provides 
     that funds appropriated for expenses under the Guardianship, 
     Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 
     1986 shall be available for obligations incurred under that 
     Act in each fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 
     1989.
       9. Language is included under ``Public Safety and Justice'' 
     providing $500,000 for the Police Chief's confidential fund 
     in fiscal year 1995 in accordance with the Police Chief's 
     estimates.
       10. Language under ``Public Safety and Justice'' requires 
     the Police department to provide quarterly reports on its 
     efforts to increase efficiency and improve the 
     professionalism in the Department.
       11. Language under ``Public Safety and Justice'' gives the 
     Metropolitan Police Department independent authority to make 
     purchases up to $500,000 and provides that the District of 
     Columbia government may not require the Department to submit 
     to any other procurement review process, or to obtain the 
     approval of any other official or employee.
       12. Language is included under ``Public Education System'' 
     authorizing the District of Columbia Public Schools to accept 
     not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use in the 
     driver education program.
       13. Language is under ``Public Education System'' requiring 
     the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of 
     Columbia to establish a tuition rate for nonresident students 
     at a level no lower than the rate for nonresident students at 
     comparable public institutions of higher education in the 
     metropolitan area.
       14. Under ``Human Support Services'', there is language 
     providing that appropriations available solely for employees' 
     disability compensation shall remain available until 
     expended. 31 U.S.C. 1301(c)(2) provides in part, that:
       (c) An appropriation in a regular, annual appropriation law 
     may be construed to be permanent or available continuously 
     only if the appropriation--

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (2) expressly provides that it is available after the 
     fiscal year covered by the law in which it appears.
       15. Language under ``Human Support Services'' prohibits the 
     District from providing free government service to private 
     nonprofit organizations if the District would not be 
     qualified to receive reimbursement pursuant to the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Act.
       16. Language is included under ``Public Works'' providing 
     for the 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.
       17. Language under ``Repayment of General Fund Recovery 
     Debt'' provides funds to reduce the District's accumulated 
     general fund deficit.
       18. Under ``Capital Outlay'', there is language that 
     provides that the amount appropriated shall remain available 
     until expended. This language is needed to provide an 
     exemption to 31 U.S.C. 1301(c)(2) to allow the funds to 
     remain available beyond fiscal year 1995. The exemption is 
     needed because of the length of time required for the design 
     and construction of capital projects.
       19. The Committee has included language under ``Capital 
     Outlay'' requiring that funds appropriated for capital outlay 
     projects shall be managed and controlled in accordance with 
     procedures and limitations established under the financial 
     management system and that all such funds shall be 
     available only for the specific project and purpose 
     intended.
       20. Language under ``Lottery and Charitable Games 
     Enterprise Fund'' requires the use of non-Federal funds to 
     finance the operations of the Lottery Board and directs the 
     District to identify the source of funding from its own 
     locally-generated revenues.
       21. Section 101 of the ``General Provisions'' requires that 
     all expenditures for consulting services obtained through 
     procurement contracts be open for public inspection.
       22. Language under section 104 grants the Mayor the 
     authority within rates prescribed by Federal Travel 
     Regulations, to establish mileage allowances for privately 
     owned automobiles and motorcycles used for official purposes.
       23. A proviso is included under section 105 of the bill 
     permitting the Council of the District of Columbia and the 
     local judiciary to expend funds for travel and payment of 
     dues without authorization by the Mayor.
       24. Section 106 appropriates funds for refunding 
     overpayments of taxes collected and for paying judgments 
     against the District of Columbia government.
       25. Section 107 of the ``General Provisions'' provides an 
     exemption from the requirement of section 544 of the District 
     of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982, effect April 6, 
     1982 (D.C. Law 4-101; D.C. Code, sec. 3-205.44).
       That section states that:
       Such amount as referred to in subsection (a) of this 
     section shall not be less than the full amount determined as 
     necessary on the basis of the minimum needs of such person as 
     established by the Council.
       Because of financing constraints, the District has 
     regularly budgeted for a percentage of the public assistance 
     payment standard, rather than for the full amount as required 
     by Sec. 3-205.44 of the District of Columbia Code.
       26. Language is included in section 110 of the ``General 
     Provisions'' requiring the annual budget for the District of 
     Columbia government for fiscal year 1996 to be transmitted to 
     the Congress no later than April 15, 1995. The District of 
     Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act 
     (Public Law 93-198) does not provide a specific date for the 
     transmitted of budgets to the Congress.
       27. Language in section 112 of the ``General Provisions'' 
     has been carried since 1979 and allows the payment of a 
     percentage of taxes collected to individuals who provide 
     information to the District resulting in the collection of 
     taxes.
       28. A proviso is included under Section 114 requiring the 
     Mayor to develop an annual plan for borrowing capital outlay 
     funds and to submit quarterly reports to the Council to the 
     District of Columbia.
       29. Language in section 115 of the ``General Provisions'' 
     requires the Mayor to obtain approval from the Council of the 
     District of Columbia prior to borrowing funds for capital 
     projects.
       30. Section 116 of the ``General Provisions'' prohibits the 
     Mayor from paying operating expenses with funds borrowed for 
     capital projects.
       31. Language in section 117 prohibits the obligation or 
     expenditure of funds by reprogramming unless advance approval 
     is obtained in accordance wit established procedures set 
     forth in House Report No. 96-443 as modified in House Report 
     No. 98-265.
       32. Language in section 118 prohibits the use of Federal 
     funds in the bill to provide a personal cook, chauffeur, or 
     other personal servants to any officer or employee of the 
     District of Columbia government.
       33. Language in section 119 prohibits the use of Federal 
     funds in the bill to purchase passenger automobiles as 
     defined in 15 U.S.C. 2001(2) with an Environmental Protection 
     Agency estimated miles per gallon average of less than 22 
     miles per gallon.
       34. Language in section 120 authorities the Mayor to set 
     the salary of the City Administrator at a rate not to exceed 
     the maximum statutory rate established for level IV of the 
     Federal Executive Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5315, and provides 
     that this salary may be payable to the City Administrator 
     during fiscal year 1995. The language also authorizes the 
     Mayor to set the per diem rate for board members of the 
     Redevelopment Land Agency in the same manner consistent with 
     their authority to set these rates for members of other 
     boards and commissions of the District government. The Major 
     does not have this authority at the present time.
       35. Language under section 121 clarifies the pay setting 
     authority for District employees as the District's Merit 
     Personnel Act rather than title 5 of the United States Code.
       36. Language in section 122 exempts the District from 
     provisions of section 322 of the Economy Act of 1932 
     concerning expenditures for office leasing, alternations, 
     improvements and repairs. This exemption was recommended by 
     the General Accounting Office and was first carried in the 
     fiscal year 1985 bill.
       37. Language in section 124 extends for one year the 
     District's authority to sell its general obligations bonds 
     through negotiated sales.
       38. Language in section 125 prohibits the District 
     government from renewing or extending sole source contracts 
     without opening them to the competitive bidding process as 
     set forth in section 303 of the District of Columbia 
     Procurement Practices Act of 1984, effective February 21, 
     1986 (D.C. Law 6-85).
       39. Sec. 126 requires any sequestration pursuant to the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     (Public Law 99-177) to be applied to each of the Federal fund 
     appropriation accounts rather than to the aggregate total of 
     these accounts.
       40. Language in section 127 provides that in the event a 
     sequestration order is issued after the amounts appropriated 
     to the District have been paid to the District, the Mayor is 
     required to pay the Secretary of the Treasury, within 15 days 
     after receipt of a request from the Secretary, the amounts 
     sequestered by the order provided the sequestration 
     percentage is applied to each of the Federal appropriation 
     accounts and not applied to the aggregate total.
       41. Section 128 makes permanent section 133 of the D.C. 
     Appropriations Act, 1990, Public Law 101-168; 103 Stat. 1280-
     1282, which provides means by which the District of Columbia 
     government is paid for water and sanitary sewer services 
     furnished to any department, agency, or independent 
     establishment of the Federal government.
       42. Language under section 129 requires the District to pay 
     interest on payments to the Federal Bureau of Prisons made 
     more than 60 days from receipt of an itemized statement.
       43. Language in section 130 prohibits the expenditure of 
     funds for programs or functions for which a reorganization 
     plan is required but has not been approved by the Council.
       44. Language under section 131 allows the District of 
     Columbia government to accept and use, with the Mayor's 
     approval, donations received for public purposes authorized 
     by law. The language also requires that accurate records be 
     maintained by the agency or entity administering the program 
     and that the records be available for audit and public 
     inspection. The language also allows the Council of the 
     District of Columbia and the Board of Education to accept 
     gifts and donations without the approval of the Mayor.
       45. Language under section 132 imposes a hiring freeze 
     District-wide except for essential positions and requires the 
     Council to enact implementing legislation.
       46. Language under section 133 continues current law as it 
     relates to the prohibition on the use of Federal funds for 
     salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the 
     offices of D.C. Senator for representative.
       47. Language under section 134 continues current law that 
     prohibits the use of Federal funds in the bill for abortions 
     except to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or 
     incest.
       48. Language under section 135 requires an independent 
     audit of the D.C. Retirement Board.
       49. Language under section 136 relates to the Municipal 
     Fish Wharf.
       50. Language under section 137 relates to quarterly 
     financial reports.
       51. The Committee has approved language under the Water and 
     Sewer Enterprise Fund relating to capital borrowings by the 
     Secretary of the Army for the Washington Aqueduct.

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I conclude this debate, we talked about a lot of 
parliamentary gobbledygook. The fact of the matter is, this is an open 
rule that allows all relevant amendments to be offered, debated, and 
voted upon.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule 
providing for consideration of the District of Columbia appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1995. I commend my colleague, Julian Dixon, for 
seeking this rule and Rules Committee Chairman Joe Moakley for offering 
it.
  This rule is both fair and reasonable. What makes this rule fair is 
that it allows for consideration of any amendment that complies with 
the Rules of the House governing consideration of appropriations bills. 
What makes this rule reasonable is that it defers to the authorizing 
committee decisions about such matters as the District's pension system 
and the use of the Federal payment.
  Mr. Speaker, the House District Committee has before it legislation 
affecting the District's retirement system and unfunded pension 
liability, as well as reauthorization of the Federal payment. In those 
contexts, the committee will address the findings of the recently 
released GAO report on the financial condition of the District of 
Columbia.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of Mississippi) The question is 
on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  This will be a 15-minute vote. It will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote, if ordered, upon adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251, 
nays 177, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                               YEAS--251

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--177

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Chapman
     Dicks
     Machtley
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Washington

                              {time}  1430

  Messrs. McKEON, EVERETT, LEWIS of California, and McCANDLESS changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BARCA of Wisconsin and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1433

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of Mississippi). The question is 
on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 188, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               AYES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Synar
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--188

     Allard
     Archer
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Armey
     Chapman
     Dicks
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Reynolds
     Schumer
     Swift
     Volkmer
     Washington

                              {time}  1438

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________