[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT 1995, INCLUDING SUPPLEMENTAL 
          APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4649) 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, 1995, and for other purposes; and 
pending that motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that general 
debate be limited to not to exceed 1 hour, the time to be equally 
divided and controlled by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and 
myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  1326


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4649, with Mr. Mfume in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as having been read the 
first time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dixon] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman and Members, I am pleased today to present to 
the House the District of Columbia appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1995. I will be brief as to my remarks, but first I would like to thank 
the members of the subcommittee for their support and assistance, 
especially the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the ranking member 
of the committee, for his contributions. We have certainly not always 
agreed philosophically, but I think we respect each other's opinion, 
and I am pleased to announce to the House that, along with the ranking 
member, Mr. Walsh, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] who is 
the ranking member on the authorizing committee, and with the approval 
of the chairman of the authorizing committee, Mr. Stark, we have 
reached an agreement that I will touch upon in a few minutes.
  This bill, Mr. Chairman and Members, is different from the other 
appropriation bills in two ways. First, it is balanced with budget 
authority equal to revenues; and, second, it includes the appropriation 
of three District kinds of funding. The first is the Federal money, 
which totals $720 million. Second, it includes local taxes and fees 
which amount to $3 billion. And third, it includes long-term borrowing 
authority in the amount of $5 million. These amounts add up to the 
total sum of the bill of $3.7 billion.

                              {time}  1330

  And that is the distinction that it has from the other 12 
appropriation bills which only include Federal funds and they draw of 
their funds from the Federal Treasury.
  We are also recommending a net increase of $22 million in 
supplemental appropriations and rescissions for fiscal year 1994. These 
are all District funds. There are no Federal funds involved in the 1994 
supplemental which is included in this bill.
  For fiscal year 1995, the $720 million to which I have just made 
reference is $20 million above last year's appropriation but $2 million 
below the President's request and $5.7 million below the city's 
request. The $720 million falls basically into 2 categories. The 
Federal payment, which is $667.9 million, and the Federal contribution 
of $52.1 million to the police, fire, teachers, and judges retirement 
system.
  I would like to take just a moment to explain these two categories 
briefly. The Federal payment of $667.9 million is authorized under 
Public Law 102-102 that established a formula for determining the 
Federal payment for fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995. The formula is 
24 percent of general fund local revenues collected by the District of 
Columbia 2 years prior to the budget year. This is the third and final 
year of the Federal formula payment under the current authorization.
  I would point out that just yesterday I received a letter from the 
GAO which indicated that the Federal payment by their calculations 
should be $671.4 million, so we are well below their calculation.
  We recommend $52.1 million, as I indicated, for the police, fire, 
teachers, and judges retirement system. This is the 16th of 25 annual 
payments authorized under Public Law 96-122. For the Police Department, 
we recommend $227 million. For the 81,000 students in the public school 
system, we are including an increase of $25 million for a total of $543 
million for fiscal year 1995.
  In the area of human resources, we are recommending $779 million, an 
increase over last year's recommendation of $14 million.
  During our hearings we received a report from the Social Services 
Commissioner. I want to point out that I think she is making some 
progress in hiring and training additional social workers and 
eliminating overplacements, but one of the major 
problems with foster care from my perspective is that the District is 
having a difficult time trying to keep up with the new cases that come 
in. The largest single program under the ``human services'' category is 
the Medicaid program, which amounts to over 36 percent or $283 million 
of the Department of Human Services' budget. This $283 million is 
matched by the Federal Government, so that the total for Medicaid in 
1995 is $600 million.

  As most of us have been reading in the newspaper, the District is the 
subject of 30 or so significant equity suits that involve several 
programs and departments ranging from Housing to Corrections to Foster 
Care to code violations in the public schools. The requirements of 
these court orders and mandates are straining the District's resources.
  The bill also includes $106 million for pay adjustments for all 
District employees, including police officers, firefighters, teachers, 
and other employees. This is the second year of a 3-year collective 
bargaining agreement. Prior to last year District personnel had not 
received a pay raise since October 1989 and were furloughed 12 days in 
fiscal year 1993. They were also denied within-grade raises for fiscal 
year 1993.
  There are two language items that I would like to point out to the 
members of the committee. First, as it relates to abortion, the current 
law prohibits the use of Federal funds for abortion except to save the 
mother's life and in the case of rape or incest. The restriction on 
Federal funds is identical to the Hyde language adopted last year and 
this year on the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill.
  The committee also deleted the restriction on the use of funds to 
implement the Domestic Partnership Act as requested by the District.
  Before I conclude, I want to briefly share with the House the results 
of a well-publicized GAO and CBO report. On March 29, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Stark], who is the chairman of the authorizing 
committee, and I joined in a letter to the GAO and CBO asking them to 
analyze and examine the budget and the budget process of the District 
of Columbia. They reported back to us on June 22. Our subcommittee 
transmitted a copy of the report to the members of our committee. I 
want to point out that there were no real surprises in the report. We 
had discussed in our hearings the issues that are discussed in the 
report.
  I fully agree with the Members who indicate that there is a financial 
crisis in the District. It is a financial crisis that I believe can be 
corrected if the District takes action immediately to cut spending and 
improve its management of District funds. In my personal view, the 
problem is not caused necessarily by the lack of money that flows into 
the pipeline, although I would argue that on occasion the Federal 
payment has not been adequate, but, rather, it is the money that is 
flowing out of the pipeline. It is flowing out at a much faster rate 
than it is flowing in.
  I understand that the District has a large number of citizens who 
need public services, and I think those services should be provided. 
However, I do think that the District must at some point take some of 
the priorities off the table. In that regard, a compromise has been 
entered into by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Walsh], and myself. Basically, that 
compromise directs the District to reduce its spending in fiscal year 
1995 by $150 million. Some would say that is an excessive amount, but I 
would say that there is a recognition by the District already of the 
impact of the agreement they have reached through a consent decree as 
it relates to the payment of arrearages to the pension fund, and 
because of that, the budget is out of kilter on a cash basis. When you 
take that money away and if you accept the proposition as you look at 
the anticipated revenues that they are exceptionally high in a 
declining economy; and if you accept the proposition that the Medicaid 
expenditures for 1995 are suppressed, that is, they are underestimated; 
and if the District is to reach the end of the year and still have a 
balanced budget, they are going to cut at least $100 million to $150 
million. So as it relates to that money, I say that the Congress is 
directing them to do something that they would have to do anyway if 
they are to adhere to a balanced budget concept.

  Second, it does not direct the District to make any specific cuts--we 
leave that judgment up to the Mayor and the City Council.
  It also provides reporting requirements and an implementation plan. 
The language requires that no later than 30 days after the date of 
enactment, the Mayor of the District shall submit to Congress a report 
setting forth a detailed plan for implementing the reduction.
  As we know, the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] is holding 
hearings tomorrow on the Federal payment, and I want to assure this 
body that our committee, as well as Mr. Stark's committee, intends to 
stay abreast of the District government's spending, and District 
officials will have to make quarterly reports to the committees. In no 
event, though, shall they spend in 1995 more than they collect. There 
is a section in our agreement that says the total outlays of the 
District of Columbia during fiscal year 1995 shall not exceed the total 
receipts collected by the District during such fiscal year.
  And, fourth, the compromise amendment provides that if in fact they 
do spend more than they collect the amount by which their outlays 
exceed their receipts will be deducted from the 1996 Federal payment.

                              {time}  1340

  I would rather come to the floor with no agreement; however, the 
District government is in a precarious financial situation and has lost 
its credibility with this Congress, so I feel it necessary, in order to 
get sufficient support for this bill, to enter into an agreement. But I 
think it is an agreement they would have to implement on their own if 
they were to keep good faith. From that perspective, I think it is a 
good agreement.
  I would like to thank and acknowledge the fine work of the General 
Accounting Office and its staff. I also want to thank District 
officials for their total cooperation in the GAO report. It obviously 
was a very painful experience for them. But, under the circumstances, I 
think the findings of the GAO report are totally accurate, and I was 
pleased to see that the Wall Street analysts support the findings of 
the GAO report.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed working with Chairman Dixon 
throughout this process and the other members of the subcommittee as we 
worked our way through the hearings and the markup. I would like to 
thank our subcommittee staff, in particular Shelia Brown on my staff, 
Debbie Weatherly, and Migo Miconi on the chairman's staff, for their 
hard work.
  We heard a lot in these hearings. However, the chairman and I have 
drawn some different conclusions on how to respond, although, as the 
chairman has noted, we have reached, with the help of the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], a substantial compromise, that I think we 
can all support. I will comment on that later also.
  The chairman also has accepted in the process two amendments that I 
offered. One was a requirement that the District provide quarterly 
reports on spending and revenue projections throughout the year to the 
subcommittee; and a second amendment that would provide appropriations 
of $250,000 for an audit of the pension board, following on to what the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] had requested 
earlier on. It would formalize that process.
  Allow me, please, to share with you some of what I heard and also the 
results of the GAO audit requested by the chairman. Although the 
District received an additional $331 million from the Congress in 
proceeds under general obligation bonds in 1991, and then another $100 
million more from the Congress, their cash position has declined since 
then by $200 million. They will finish the year 1995 with a minimum 
cash deficiency of $21 million. Minimum. The GAO suggests there could 
be more than $200 million in deficit at the end of 1995, and have to 
borrow from the U.S. Treasury.
  While the mayor claims to have cut employment by 17 percent, the GAO 
audit shows employment at best has been reduced by 9 percent, but 
payroll costs have gone up. The Mayor decided not to pay pension 
payments this year, and the pension board was forced to raid the fund. 
Since then, an agreement was reached, but it cost the taxpayers an 
additional $13 million in penalties, fines, and interest. The Mayor has 
not yet explained where the dollars will come from to meet the 
obligations under this agreement.
  The list goes on. The GAO report is dramatic evidence that the 
District of Columbia is out of control and headed for bankruptcy. We 
cannot stand by anymore and point to home rule. The law says that the 
District must present balanced budgets to the Congress to qualify for 
home rule, and they have not.
  In 1991, supplemental request, they asked for and got an additional 
$103 million to balance their budget. In 1992, they transferred $28 
million out of the water and sewer fund to the general fund to balance 
the books, a clear violation of their own charter. In 1993, they 
changed their property tax year to get five quarters into that year, to 
get an additional and phony $174 million. By the way, since our Federal 
formula grant is based only on that phony number, we are being asked to 
pay more this year because of it.
  I planned to offer an amendment to reduce our appropriation by $41 
million, but this compromise agreement covers that amount.
  In 1994, the Mayor tried to renege on the pension payments to free up 
an additional $150 million and the city council established fees that 
may be ruled unconstitutional to gather another $35 million.
  Estimates are that this year the budget is short by $200 million. Who 
do they think they are fooling? These are in the papers every day. 
Allow me to cite some of the problems that are not being addressed.

  Just this week, we read that the Department of Housing, rated the 
worst in America, spent an additional $1.3 million to spruce up its own 
offices, while hundreds of rental units remained empty, unrepaired, and 
uninhabitable, and hundreds of Americans are living on the streets of 
Washington, DC, homeless.
  Regarding home rule: We tell cities and States all over America what 
rate to pay for Medicaid reimbursements. We tell doctors basically what 
to charge for services. We tell schools what standards to achieve. We 
tell businesses what the minimum wage is and what constitutes a 
violation of their employees' rights. We tell States that they will get 
no highway funds unless they set speed limits at 55 miles per hour. We 
tell everybody what to do and how to do it. Why not the District of 
Columbia? The Constitution has given us the right and the authority to 
do that.
  Home rule equals balanced budgets. If the District does not provide a 
balanced budget, we do not have to provide home rule.
  One point on the District General Hospital, the District is writing 
off $10 million per year and they call this a loan to make the books 
balance. They are not collecting Medicaid or private insurance. The 
hospital is really a primary care facility, not needed as a hospital.
  I will ask for a feasibility study over the next year to determine 
how to close the District hospital. It is currently $109 million in 
debt, accumulated debt, and it has been projected by the GAO audit that 
it will be $280 million in debt by the year 2000. Other District 
hospitals can make up the beds, room days at the DC hospital are down, 
surgeries are down. They need a clinic in the neighborhood, not a 
hospital that loses $10 million per year. Depending on the report and 
the management of that hospital over the next year, I will offer an 
amendment to eliminate funds under next year's appropriations bill.
  Minimum cash shortfall for 1995, $9 million, probable $21 million. 
This year the District will receive $668 million from the Congress, 
from the taxpayers of the United States, in addition to $52 million 
directly on the pension fund, and $770 million in direct grants, which 
equals $1.5 billion to a city of 600,000.

  A couple of points on mismanagement in the District. The Rivlin 
Commission said the District of Columbia has 40 percent higher staffing 
levels than the average city in America. The mayor said she would cut 
17 percent. There has been nowhere near a 17-percent cut in employment. 
Just to make the point. My hometown, Syracuse, NY, 170,000 people, the 
District of Columbia has 600,000. So DC is about three times larger 
than Syracuse in terms of population.
  The city council payroll for the District of Columbia is 192 
employees. Syracuse, including the councilors, has 14 employees. 
Police, Syracuse, 757 total officers. DC, 5,429. Public works, Syracuse 
has 350 employees, DC has 1,240. The corporation counsel's office for a 
city of 170,000 in Syracuse has 29 lawyers. The District of Columbia 
has 247. The department of finance, Syracuse has 35 employees, the 
District of Columbia, 229.
  Just to give you an idea, and you will hear the argument the District 
of Columbia is largely tax exempt, property tax exempt, because of all 
the government property. It is true, the District of Columbia is 49-
percent tax exempt. But my hometown, Syracuse, NY, is 52-percent tax 
exempt. So the District of Columbia is not unlike any other State 
capital city or county seat city in America, in that its property tax 
is roughly 50-percent uncollectible because it is tax exempt property. 
So they are not unusual in that respect.
  While the District of Columbia has county and statelike 
responsibilities, those are clearly apples to apples comparisons.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, last week the AIDS director for the 
District of Columbia resigned. Earlier this year, the health 
commissioner resigned, as did the Medicaid director. The Board of 
Elections officials, school superintendent, housing supervisor, the 
list goes on and on; these individuals have either resigned or been 
fired. We rarely saw a department head, the same department head this 
year in our hearings that we saw last year.

                              {time}  1350

  Something is dramatically wrong. Home rule and the current situation 
of unfunded pensions, unbalanced budgets, and poor management of city 
resources is no longer possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to comment on the compromise agreement when we 
get to the amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  [Ms. NORTON addressed the House. Her remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise Members controlling the debate 
time that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] has 21 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], ranking member of the Committee on the District 
of Columbia.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. 
I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the 
ranking member, for working together with this member as we deal with 
this situation.
  I do not think that any of us enjoy being here in the position that 
we find ourselves today. I know that the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from California, who knows better than anyone that this 
budget is in bad shape, does not wish that he is here today dealing 
with this as we have to deal with it. It is the spotlight that he has 
focused onto the District budget which has cast such a large shadow 
over this appropriations bill. Anyone who has followed the local news 
recently knows that the delegate of the District of Columbia does not 
want to be here. She has been dealt a very difficult hand, and she has 
handled it exceedingly well.
  I can assure Members that I do not want to be in the position that I 
am in today. In the past 3 years I have helped the District with an 
infusion of more than $1 billion.

                              {time}  1400

  Believe me, I do not take pleasure in saying that despite all of our 
efforts, the District is still facing a short-term financial crisis 
which pales in comparison to the long-term crisis dead ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, District expenditures are growing at twice the rate of 
revenues and the annual budget deficit, if we do nothing, will grow to 
$742 million by the year 2000.
  Let me state, Mr. Chairman, that this budget, the District budget, is 
not a partisan issue. We all share responsibility for the Nation's 
Capital. We are divided, however, between those who would have us do 
nothing, despite the evidence we have, and those of us who fully 
understand that the day of reckoning is here. We are all in our 
unfortunate positions because the District government has refused to 
make any changes in the budget before us. District officials have, 
instead, chosen a strategy of blaming Congress for the problems in the 
budget.
  If that strategy works today and we do not force District officials 
to live up to their responsibilities under their home rule charter, we 
will see it repeated over and over again. If we do not demand that the 
District government revise this year's budget, there is little hope we 
will achieve any semblance of discipline in the future. The District 
will close the books early in fiscal year 1994, deferring some $30 
million in disbursements into fiscal year 1995.
  The District also faces an estimated $90 million in new expenditures 
to correct the more than 5,600 safety violations in the public schools. 
A judge has threatened to keep the schools closed until repairs are 
made. District officials acknowledge they do not have the money.
  GAO found that the District has not budgeted funds to pay the cost 
for more than 300 inmates who are housed in Federal and other non-D.C. 
correctional facilities. It has uncovered violations of the Anti-
Deficiency Act. Some have calculated that the fiscal year 1995 deficit 
for the District of Columbia will reach between $200 and $300 million.
  Congress has done its part to help the District. Between 1990 and 
1994, Federal assistance to the District as increased by nearly 30 
percent compared to a 9-percent increase in general fund local 
revenues. In 1990 the Federal Government provided 49 cents for every $1 
raised in local revenues. Today the Federal Government provides 58 
cents for every $1.
  As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] has pointed out, the 
Federal Government will provide more than $1.5 billion to the District 
this year. Members may be interested to know that the District has just 
recently projected it will receive $31 million more in Federal grants 
than it anticipated in April.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been a strong supporter of the District and have 
worked hard on a bipartisan basis to help this great city. We all share 
a responsibility for the Nation's Capital, but we cannot ignore the 
reality and the seriousness of the District's financial crisis. We have 
a fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer to ensure that 
these finds are spent wisely and in accordance with Federal laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I will speak at the time the amendment is offered. 
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] for 
his patience and understanding and willingness to work together that 
brings us to this point today.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Stark], the distinguished chairman of the authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the Committee on 
Appropriations for yielding time to me, and I wish to engage the 
distinguished ranking member of the committe in a colloquy.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity to thank 
the gentleman for his work in bringing about this compromise, and to 
state that the gentleman on the Committee on the District of Columbia 
has been an advocate of home rule and has been a great help to us in 
attempting to assist the District where he can and resist interfering, 
where often fools would rush in where angels fear to tread. The 
gentleman has been a consistent aid in that, and I appreciate his 
patience. I want to commend the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that I am quite right that the gentleman 
still maintains his commitment to home rule, is that not the case?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STARK. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BLILEY. That is the case, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, we would both look forward to the day when 
perhaps this was not necessary and the payments would be more 
automatic, in the nature of real estate taxes, and he and I would have 
time to pursue other interests that might be of more importance to our 
particular constituents, but in the meantime I wanted to take this 
opportunity, along with the ranking member of the subcommittee, to 
thank them for arriving at this compromise. I think it is a wise step, 
and I think it will satisfy many of the concerns of the Members of the 
House, and, I might add, if any Members have a tremendous interest in 
this, I am sure the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] would say we 
always have room on the Committee on the District of Columbia for those 
who would like to pitch in and help. The gentleman does yeoman's work 
and I want to thank him for his cooperation in these matters.
  Mr. BLILEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
also want to thank the gentleman for his help in improving the language 
of the amendment that will be offered shortly.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the District of Columbia appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1995, and I commend Chairman Julian Dixon for his 
diligence in managing this bill through an arduous process under very 
trying circumstances. And, I especially want to commend the ranking 
member of the House District Committee, Tom Bliley of Virginia, for his 
support of home rule and his role in reaching a compromise to finally 
bring this bill to the floor.
  There is no longer any mystery as to causes and effects of the 
District's fiscal crisis. On March 29, 1994, Chairman Dixon and I 
commissioned the General Accounting Office [GAO] to conduct a 
comprehensive review of the District's finances. An excellent interim 
report was released by the GAO on June 22, 1994. With great detail and 
impressive analysis, the report explains how the District has reached 
this low point.
  Based on GAO's findings, I am convinced that major financial and 
management reforms must be implemented immediately to avert financial 
calamity. However, this appropriations bill is not the proper vehicle 
for those reforms. Nor is it the role of the Congress to hastily impose 
major changes.
  Out of my deep respect for home rule, I will oppose any amendment 
offered here today that would propose specific cuts in District 
programs. I will also vote against any attempt to impose the moral 
views of others on the sovereign residents of the District.
  Nevertheless, the District's political and governmental leaders must 
make tough choices now. If not, the city will effectively ``hit the 
wall'' next year and need to borrow from the Federal Treasury. Time is 
of the essence.
  Let me say Mr. Chairman, that I am disappointed that the District has 
failed to heed the warnings of even its best friends here in Congress. 
I know of the frustration of my colleague, Julian Dixon, to get the 
city to responsibly fulfill its own obligation to its citizens and to 
present Congress with a logical and balanced budget. My own attempts to 
get the city to acknowledge its need to demonstrate some modicum of 
fiscal discipline were summarily dismissed by the District. Matters did 
not need to reach this point.
  Beginning tomorrow and over the next several weeks, my committee will 
consider legislation reauthorizing the annual Federal payment to the 
District. At that time, and in that context, the Committee will address 
many of the issues raised by the GAO report.
  In closing, home rule does not absolve the District of its obligation 
to exercise responsible decision-making and fiscal discipline. Nor does 
it absolve the Congress of its responsibility to the Nation's 
taxpayers, including the District's residents. This bill now sends a 
clear signal to the District that Congress will not sit idly by while 
the District descends into bankruptcy.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh] for yielding me this time.
  I intended to offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman, cutting $1.6 million 
out of this bill, but in light of the compromise that has been worked 
out I think the points have been made. I would like to associate myself 
with the remarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], which I 
think were excellent, and point out a problem that remains, 
notwithstanding that a compromise has been achieved this year.
  I do offer my congratulations to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh], the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for the 
hard work they have done to pull something together here.
  However, Mr. Chairman, I have to point out that my remarks during the 
rule still are relevant. We have not made a fix. It is broken. Either 
the system is broken or the management is broken, I do not know which, 
but it has got to be fixed.
  The chairman of the subcommittee has more or less agreed to that 
problem or to that hypothesis, Mr. Chairman, and has promised that we 
will try and do better. I think that is very important, because we do 
have a genuine financial crisis. The GAO has said so, others have said 
so, people who have looked at it have said so.
  No matter whether people agree or disagree, we cannot come up with 
the fact that we are not having a problem with dollars. I think, Mr. 
Chairman, that the fact that we have a management problem still has 
been underscored, regrettably, in a Washington Post article, I think it 
was today, where it talked about the Housing Department, which was the 
genesis of my amendment, the problems that have been caused there by 
the scandal and the misappropriation of dollars for glorifying their 
headquarters when there are needs for the people of the District of 
Columbia for shelter and better improved housing; that the money was 
spent on propaganda for newsletters, it was spent on cleaning up the 
headquarters and making a better palace for the leaders of the program, 
apparently.
  Now we read in today's paper that indeed there have been junkets to 
Puerto Rico. What is happening is that they just have not got the 
message in this department, and they just have not got the message in 
some of the other departments of the District of Columbia.
  I hope that those in positions of authority are going to send that 
message, because I, too, would like to be able to stand here and say, 
``I think Home Rule has succeeded in Washington.'' I do not think that 
is the case now. I would love to be able to say that.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the District of 
Columbia, I rise in support of the compromise to cut $150 million from 
the District of Columbia budget.
  In the summer of 1991, with bipartisan support, the House approved a 
series of steps to help the District financial situation. One of the 
most important action was to approve a controversial $331 million bond 
obligation. As a past local government official who had to balance a 
budget I learned one thing for sure: ``you don't sell bonds for 
operating expenses as the District of Columbia government did in 
1991.''
  Only the Federal Government can do that, and I think that is wrong. 
And would you believe that the District received a beneficial interest 
rate on those bonds in spite of their financial condition? Would you 
like to know why--because the bond attorneys knew that we, the Federal 
Government would eventually have to pay up. Ultimately, it is the 
responsibility of the Federal Government to cover the bonds.
  The D.C. government must face the problem now or it will fall on the 
backs of the American taxpayer. The time has come to quit playing 
politics with the numbers and face facts.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to make life more difficult 
for the gentleman from California or the gentleman from New York. I am 
a member of the Housing Subcommittee of this body and I would like to 
have some attention from the District of Columbia's Department of 
Public and Assisted Housing [DPAH].
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] just made mention of the 
difficulties revealed today again.
  In a recent hearing before the Housing Subcommittee, both the HUD 
inspector general and the special master appointed by Judge Steffen 
Graae of the District of Columbia Superior Court expressed their 
judgment that the Department of Public and Assisted Housing should be 
placed in receivership. This Member heartily concurs with that 
judgment.
  The residents of the District have been harmed and allegedly 
defrauded by their local government. The District's housing authority 
has been rated by HUD as ``troubled'' since 1979--the first year such a 
designation was used--yet neither HUD nor the District Government has 
succeeded in alleviating the problems at DPAH. In fact, things have 
only gotten worse. In their most recent rating, HUD rated DPAH as the 
worst public housing authority in the Nation.
  Despite the recent charges brought against DPAH authorities, no 
action has been taken by DPAH to recover the section 8 certificates 
which were fraudulently issued. Even as fraud is uncovered and 
publicized, DPAH does nothing to remedy the situation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is apparent that neither the District nor HUD is 
able to deal with this situation on their own, or most likely, 
together, and that the only answer to this problem is an independent 
receiver. Despite a joint effort between the District and HUD to clean 
up the mess that is DPAH, the shenanigans continue. Today's Washington 
Post reports that just last month, apparently with the blessing of the 
HUD-District partnership, DPAH sent eight representatives on an all-
expense paid trip to Puerto Rico at a cost to taxpayers of $10,800. The 
excuses offered to justify the trip are transparent and ridiculous. 
This use of funds is outrageous and inexcusable. While citizens of the 
District go homeless, DPAH employees bask in the sun and stay at a 
luxury hotel.
  If this can go on after HUD and the District have vowed to clean up 
DPAH, it is clear that they are not up to the task. Receivership is the 
only answer. In fact, Mr. Chairman, in a hearing on May 24, the special 
master, Mr. James Stockard, again made that recommendation to Judge 
Graae. It is this Member's hope that Judge Graae will finally exhibit 
the proper judgment and minimal courage to take Mr. Stockard's advice. 
However, the Judge has not yet acted, and the residents of the District 
continue to suffer while Judge Graae procrastinates.
  As this body moves to make Federal funds available to the District, 
this Member wants to take the opportunity to urge Judge Graae to act to 
place the District of Columbia Housing Authority in receivership. It is 
the responsibility of this body to see that the Federal funds 
appropriated for the District are not misused. Unfortunately, it is 
clear that until the Judge acts we cannot have an even minimal 
assurance that such misuse will not occur again. Again, this Member 
urges Judge Graae to place the District of Columbia's Department of 
Public and Assisted Housing in receivership. The citizens of the 
District, and the taxpayers of the United States should not be 
defrauded further.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the ranking 
Republicans and the chairman and the subcommittee chairmen on the 
Democratic side for their efforts at compromise on this bill. However, 
there is one subject in the bill that there has not been a compromise 
made and which apparently there will not be. That is, the fact that the 
District of Columbia is one of the few cities in the country that has 
passed a domestic partnership act under which any two individuals who 
can prove by certification that they live in the same domicile whether 
they are married or not can receive health care benefits.
  This act is actually entitled the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act 
of 1992.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to read into the Record the definition of what a 
family and what a domestic partner is called in this act. It says 
``Definitions'' under section 2:

       A domestic partner means a person with whom an individual 
     maintains a committed relationship as defined in subsection 
     1.

  In subsection 1, a committed relationship means a familial 
relationship between two individuals characterized by mutual caring and 
the sharing of a mutual residence.
  A domestic partner, then, is anyone who is 18 years old, mentally 
competent who agrees that they are the sole domestic partner of the 
other individual and who is not married. In plain English, what this 
means is that homosexual couples, heterosexual couples who are not 
married, roommates, can go to the District of Columbia, register as 
domestic partners, and then be eligible for health benefits and any 
unemployment or any other benefits that happen to be available if they 
happen to be employees of the District of Columbia.
  To me, this is simply not acceptable. It has not been acceptable to 
the last Congress and to the previous Congress.
  In 1992, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] offered an amendment 
that would have prevented any funds being spent to implement this act. 
That passed with 235 votes. In 1993, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook] offered a similar amendment that passed in this body with 251 
votes. I am prepared to offer an identical amendment to this bill but 
because of a parliamentary problem there can be a point of order made 
against it. The distinguished chairman of the committee has indicated 
that he would make such a point of order. In order for the Barton 
amendment to prevent any funds being expended to implement the Domestic 
Partnership Act, in order to offer that amendment, we have got to 
defeat the motion to rise which again the distinguished chairman of the 
committee has indicated that he will offer at the appropriate point in 
time.

  If we go to Webster's Dictionary at the back of this Chamber and look 
up the definition of family, we do not see the definition that is in 
this act. To me, a family is your mother and father, your wife, your 
husband, your children, your aunts, your uncles, your cousins, your 
nephews, it is not somebody who signs a piece of paper and says they 
have a mutually caring relationship. That is not the definition of 
family that I grew up with, it is not the definition of family that 
anybody in this Chamber has grown up with, it is not the definition of 
family that the Congress in the last session and the previous session 
saw fit to support.
  I would strongly ask that at the appropriate time Members help me 
defeat the motion to rise so that I can offer the amendment to prevent 
any funds in this act from being expended to implement the District of 
Columbia's Domestic Partnership Act.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4649

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 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, 1995, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                    FISCAL YEAR 1995 APPROPRIATIONS

              Federal Payment to the District of Columbia

       For payment to the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1995, $667,930,000, as authorized by 
     section 502(a) of the District of Columbia Self-Government 
     and Governmental Reorganization Act, Public Law 93-198, as 
     amended (D.C. Code, sec. 47-3406.1).

                Federal Contribution to Retirement Funds

       For the Federal contribution to the Police Officers and 
     Fire Fighters', Teachers', and Judges' Retirement Funds, as 
     authorized by the District of Columbia Retirement Reform Act, 
     approved November 17, 1979 (93 Stat. 866; Public Law 96-122), 
     $52,070,000.

                          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, $81,159,000: 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 expenditures 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 notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there is hereby appropriated from the 
     earnings of the applicable retirement funds $12,432,000 to 
     pay legal, management, investment, and other fees and 
     administrative expenses of the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia Retirement Board shall provide to the Congress and 
     to the Council of the District of Columbia a quarterly report 
     of the allocations of charges by fund and of expenditures of 
     all funds: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board shall provide the Mayor, for transmittal to 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, an item accounting 
     of the planned use of appropriated funds in time for each 
     annual budget submission and the actual use of such funds in 
     time for each annual audited financial report: 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.

                  Economic Development and Regulation

       Economic development and regulation, $56,343,000: Provided, 
     That the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency, 
     established by section 201 of the District of Columbia 
     Housing Finance Agency Act, effective March 3, 1979 (D.C. Law 
     2-135; D.C. Code, sec. 45-2111), based upon its capability of 
     repayments as determined each year by the Council of the 
     District of Columbia from the Housing Finance Agency's annual 
     audited financial statements to the Council of the District 
     of Columbia, shall repay to the general fund an amount equal 
     to the appropriated administrative costs plus interest at a 
     rate of four percent per annum for a term of 15 years, with a 
     deferral of payments for the first three years: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding the foregoing provision, the 
     obligation to repay all or part of the amounts due shall be 
     subject to the rights of the owners of any bonds or notes 
     issued by the Housing Finance Agency and shall be repaid to 
     the District of Columbia government only from available 
     operating revenues of the Housing Finance Agency that are in 
     excess of the amounts required for debt service, reserve 
     funds, and operating expenses: Provided further, That upon 
     commencement of the debt service payments, such payments 
     shall be deposited into the general fund of the District of 
     Columbia.

                      Human Resources Development

       Human resources development, $41,046,000.

                       Public Safety and Justice

       Public safety and justice, including purchase 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, $884,926,000: Provided, That the 
     Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not 
     to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Fire 
     Department 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 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, 1995, shall 
     be available for obligations incurred under the Act in each 
     fiscal year since inception in the 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, 1995, 
     shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in 
     each fiscal year since inception in the 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, 1995, 
     shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in 
     each fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 1989: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $1,500 for the Chief 
     Judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $1,500 
     for the Chief Judge of the Superior Court of the District of 
     Columbia, and $1,500 for the Executive Officer of the 
     District of Columbia Courts shall be available from this 
     appropriation for official purposes: Provided further, That 
     the District of Columbia shall operate and maintain a free, 
     24-hour telephone information service whereby residents of 
     the area surrounding Lorton prison in Fairfax County, 
     Virginia, can promptly obtain information from District of 
     Columbia government officials on all disturbances at the 
     prison, including escapes, fires, riots, and similar 
     incidents: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     government shall also take steps to publicize the 
     availability of the 24-hour telephone information service 
     among the residents of the area surrounding the Lorton 
     prison: Provided further, That not to exceed $100,000 of this 
     appropriation shall be used to reimburse Fairfax County, 
     Virginia, and Prince William County, Virginia, for expenses 
     incurred by the counties during the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, in relation to the Lorton prison complex: 
     Provided further, That such reimbursements shall be paid in 
     all instances in which the District requests the counties to 
     provide police, fire, rescue, and related services to help 
     deal with escapes, fires, riots, and similar disturbances 
     involving the prison: 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.

                        Public Education System

       Public education system, including the development of 
     national defense education programs, $720,258,000, to be 
     allocated as follows: $542,682,000 for the public schools of 
     the District of Columbia; $87,100,000 shall be allocated for 
     the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; 
     $60,348,000 for the University of the District of Columbia; 
     $21,260,000 for the Public Library, of which $200,000 shall 
     be transferred to the Children's Museum; $3,301,000 for the 
     Commission on the Arts and Humanities; and $5,567,000 for the 
     District of Columbia School of Law: Provided, 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 expenditures for official purposes: 
     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, 1995, 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, $898,034,000: Provided, That 
     $20,800,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia 
     employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That 
     the District 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 purchase of passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement 
     only, $195,002,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
     not be available for collecting ashes or miscellaneous refuse 
     from hotels and places of business.

                   Washington Convention Center Fund

       For the Washington Convention Center Fund, $12,850,000.

                    Repayment of Loans and Interest

       For 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 improvement programs and to amend provisions of law 
     relating to Federal Government participation in meeting costs 
     of maintaining the Nation's Capital City, approved June 6, 
     1958 (72 Stat. 183; Public Law 85-451; D.C. Code, sec. 9-
     219); section 4 of An Act to authorize the Commissioners of 
     the District of Columbia to plan, construct, operate, and 
     maintain a sanitary sewer to connect the Dulles International 
     Airport with the District of Columbia system, approved June 
     12, 1960 (74 Stat. 211; Public Law 86-515); sections 723 and 
     743(f) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
     Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, approved December 
     24, 1973, as amended (87 Stat. 821; Public Law 93-198; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 47-321, note; 91 Stat. 1156; Public Law 95-131; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 9-219, note), including interest as required 
     thereby, $306,768,000.

                Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt

       For the purpose of eliminating the $331,589,000 general 
     fund accumulated deficit as of September 30, 1990, 
     $38,678,000, as authorized by section 461(a) of the District 
     of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization 
     Act, approved December 24, 1973, as amended (105 Stat. 540; 
     Public Law 102-106; D.C. Code, sec. 47-321(a)).

                          Short-Term Borrowing

       For short-term borrowing, $5,000,000.

                      Optical and Dental Benefits

       For optical and dental costs for nonunion employees, 
     $3,312,000.

                             Pay Adjustment

       For pay increases and related costs, to be transferred by 
     the Mayor of the District of Columbia within the various 
     appropriation headings in this Act for fiscal year 1995 from 
     which employees are properly payable, $106,095,000.

                 D.C. General Hospital Deficit Payment

       For the purpose of reimbursing the General Fund for costs 
     incurred for the operation of the D.C. General Hospital 
     pursuant to D.C. Law 1-134, the D.C. General Hospital 
     Commission Act of 1977, $10,000,000.

                             Rainy Day Fund

       For mandatory unavoidable expenditures within one or 
     several of the various appropriation headings of this Act, to 
     be allocated to the budgets for personal services and 
     nonpersonal services as requested by the Mayor and approved 
     by the Council pursuant to the procedures in section 4 of the 
     Reprogramming Policy Act of 1980, effective September 16, 
     1980 (D.C. Law 3-100; D.C. Code, sec. 47-363), $22,508,000.

             Job-Producing Economic Development Incentives

       For tax incentive programs to be enacted by the Council 
     targeted specifically to stimulating job-producing economic 
     development in the District, $22,600,000.

                           Cash Reserve Fund

       For the purpose of a cash reserve fund to replenish the 
     consolidated cash balances of the District of Columbia, 
     $3,957,000.

             Personal and Nonpersonal Services Adjustments

       The Mayor shall reduce appropriations and expenditures for 
     personal and nonpersonal services in the amount of 
     $5,702,000, within one or several of the various 
     appropriation headings in this Act.

                             Capital Outlay

       For construction projects, $5,600,000, as authorized by An 
     Act authorizing the laying of water mains and service sewers 
     in the District of Columbia, the levying of assessments 
     therefor, and for other purposes, approved April 22, 1904 (33 
     Stat. 244; Public Law 58-140; D.C. Code, secs. 43-1512 
     through 43-1519); the District of Columbia Public Works Act 
     of 1954, approved May 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 101; Public Law 83-
     364); An Act to authorize the Commissioners of the District 
     of Columbia to borrow funds for capital improvement programs 
     and to amend provisions of law relating to Federal Government 
     participation in meeting costs of maintaining the Nation's 
     Capital City, approved June 6, 1958 (72 Stat. 183; Public Law 
     85-451; including acquisition of sites, preparation of plans 
     and specifications, conducting preliminary surveys, erection 
     of structures, including building improvement and alteration 
     and treatment of grounds, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That $140,000 shall be available for project 
     management and $110,000 for design by the Director of the 
     Department of Public Works or by contract for architectural 
     engineering services, as may be determined by the Mayor: 
     Provided further, That funds for use of each capital project 
     implementing agency shall be managed and controlled in 
     accordance with all procedures and limitations established 
     under the Financial Management System: Provided further, That 
     all funds provided by this appropriation title shall be 
     available only for the specific projects and purposes 
     intended: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     foregoing, all authorizations for capital outlay projects, 
     except those projects covered by the first sentence of 
     section 23(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, 
     approved August 23, 1968 (82 Stat. 827; Public Law 90-495; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 7-134, note), for which funds are provided by 
     this appropriation title, shall expire on September 30, 1996, 
     except authorizations for projects as to which funds have 
     been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30, 
     1996: Provided further, That upon expiration of any such 
     project authorization the funds provided herein for the 
     project shall lapse.

                    Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund

       For the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund, $265,653,000, of 
     which $40,160,000 shall be apportioned and payable to the 
     debt service fund for repayment of loans and interest 
     incurred for capital improvement projects: Provided, That of 
     the amounts appropriated under this heading in prior fiscal 
     years for construction projects from the water and sewer 
     enterprise fund for the Washington Aqueduct, $21,365 are 
     rescinded.
       In addition, for the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund, such 
     amounts as are necessary for reimbursement to the United 
     States of funds loaned to the Secretary of the Army by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, including interest as required 
     thereby, for the Washington Aqueduct Capital Improvement 
     program.
       Subject to approval of authorizing legislation, during 
     fiscal year 1995, new notes and other obligations shall be 
     issued by the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury for the Washington Aqueduct Capital Improvement 
     program in an aggregate principal amount of $10,000,000.

              Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund

       For the Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund, 
     established by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, approved December 
     4, 1981 (95 Stat. 1174, 1175; Public Law 97-91), as amended, 
     for the purpose of implementing the Law to Legalize 
     Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and Raffles for 
     Charitable Purposes in the District of Columbia, effective 
     March 10, 1981 (D.C. Law 3-172; D.C. Code, secs. 2-2501 et 
     seq. and 22-1516 et seq.), $8,318,000, to be derived from 
     non-Federal District of Columbia revenues: Provided, That the 
     District of Columbia shall identify the source of funding for 
     this appropriation title from the District's own locally-
     generated revenues: Provided further, That no revenues from 
     Federal sources shall be used to support the operations or 
     activities of the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board.

                    Cable Television Enterprise Fund

       For the Cable Television Enterprise Fund, established by 
     the Cable Television Communications Act of 1981, effective 
     October 22, 1983 (D.C. Law 5-36; D.C. Code, sec. 43-1801 et 
     seq.), $2,353,000, of which $140,000 shall be transferred to 
     the general fund of the District of Columbia.

                             Starplex Fund

       For the Starplex Fund, an amount necessary for the expenses 
     incurred by the Armory Board in the exercise of its powers 
     granted by An Act to Establish a District of Columbia Armory 
     Board, and for other purposes, approved June 4, 1948 (62 
     Stat. 339; D.C. Code, sec. 2-301 et seq.) and the District of 
     Columbia Stadium Act of 1957, approved September 7, 1957 (71 
     Stat. 619; Public Law 85-300; D.C. Code, sec. 2-321 et seq.): 
     Provided, That the Mayor shall submit a budget for the Armory 
     Board for the forthcoming fiscal year as required by section 
     442(b) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
     Governmental Reorganization Act, approved December 24, 1973 
     (87 Stat. 824; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301(b)).

                           General Provisions

       Sec. 101. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 102. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all 
     vouchers covering expenditures of appropriations contained in 
     this Act shall be audited before payment by the designated 
     certifying official and the vouchers as approved shall be 
     paid by checks issued by the designated disbursing official.
       Sec. 103. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified 
     within an appropriation for particular purposes or objects of 
     expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified, shall 
     be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for 
     said purpose or object rather than an amount set apart 
     exclusively therefor.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations in this Act shall be available, 
     when authorized by the Mayor, for allowances for privately 
     owned automobiles and motorcycles used for the performance of 
     official duties at rates established by the Mayor: Provided, 
     That such rates shall not exceed the maximum prevailing rates 
     for such vehicles as prescribed in the Federal Property 
     Management Regulations 101-7 (Federal Travel Regulations).
       Sec. 105. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of 
     organizations concerned with the work of the District of 
     Columbia government, when authorized by the Mayor: Provided, 
     That the Council of the District of Columbia and the District 
     of Columbia Courts may expend such funds without 
     authorization by the Mayor.
       Sec. 106. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have 
     been entered against the District of Columbia government: 
     Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be 
     construed as modifying or affecting the provisions of section 
     11(c)(3) of title XII of the District of Columbia Income and 
     Franchise Tax Act of 1947, approved March 31, 1956 (70 Stat. 
     78; Public Law 84-460; D.C. Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
       Sec. 107. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     the payment of public assistance without reference to the 
     requirement of section 544 of the District of Columbia Public 
     Assistance Act of 1982, effective April 6, 1982 (D.C. Law 4-
     101; D.C. Code, sec. 3-205.44), and for the non-Federal share 
     of funds necessary to qualify for Federal assistance under 
     the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968, 
     approved July 31, 1968 (82 Stat. 462; Public Law 90-445; 42 
     U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).
       Sec. 108. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 109. No funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     District of Columbia government for the operation of 
     educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or 
     for other educational purposes may be used to permit, 
     encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political 
     activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the 
     availability of school buildings for the use of any community 
     or partisan political group during non-school hours.
       Sec. 110. The annual budget for the District of Columbia 
     government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
     shall be transmitted to the Congress no later than April 15, 
     1995.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the 
     District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade, 
     salary, past work experience, and salary history are not 
     available for inspection by the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations, the House Committee on the District of 
     Columbia, the Subcommittee on General Services, Federalism, 
     and the District of Columbia, of the Senate Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs, and the Council of the District of 
     Columbia, or their duly authorized representative: Provided, 
     That none of the funds contained in this Act shall be made 
     available to pay the salary of any employee of the District 
     of Columbia government whose name and salary are not 
     available for public inspection.
       Sec. 112. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making payments authorized by the District of Columbia 
     Revenue Recovery Act of 1977, effective September 23, 1977 
     (D.C. Law 2-20; D.C. Code, sec. 47-421 et seq.).
       Sec. 113. No part of this appropriation shall be used for 
     publicity or propaganda purposes or implementation of any 
     policy including boycott designed to support or defeat 
     legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature.
       Sec. 114. At the start of the fiscal year, the Mayor shall 
     develop an annual plan, by quarter and by project, for 
     capital outlay borrowings: Provided, That within a reasonable 
     time after the close of each quarter, the Mayor shall report 
     to the Council of the District of Columbia and the Congress 
     the actual borrowings and spending progress compared with 
     projections.
       Sec. 115. The Mayor shall not borrow any funds for capital 
     projects unless the Mayor has obtained prior approval from 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, by resolution, 
     identifying the projects and amounts to be financed with such 
     borrowings.
       Sec. 116. The Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed 
     for capital projects for the operating expenses of the 
     District of Columbia government.
       Sec. 117. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended by reprogramming except pursuant to 
     advance approval of the reprogramming granted according to 
     the procedure set forth in the Joint Explanatory Statement of 
     the Committee of Conference (House Report No. 96-443), which 
     accompanied the District of Columbia Appropriation Act, 1980, 
     approved October 30, 1979 (93 Stat. 713; Public Law 96-93), 
     as modified in House Report No. 98-265, and in accordance 
     with the Reprogramming Policy Act of 1980, effective 
     September 16, 1980 (D.C. Law 3-100; D.C. Code, sec. 47-361 et 
     seq.).
       Sec. 118. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of the District of Columbia.
       Sec. 119. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to procure passenger 
     automobiles as defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act 
     of 1980, approved October 10, 1980 (94 Stat. 1824; Public Law 
     96-425; 15 U.S.C. 2001(2)), with an Environmental Protection 
     Agency estimated miles per gallon average of less than 22 
     miles per gallon: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to security, emergency rescue, or armored vehicles.
       Sec. 120. (a) Notwithstanding section 422(7) of the 
     District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act of 1973, approved December 24, 1973 (87 
     Stat. 790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(7)), the 
     City Administrator shall be paid, during any fiscal year, a 
     salary at a rate established by the Mayor, not to exceed the 
     rate established for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     5 U.S.C. 5315.
       (b) For purposes of applying any provision of law limiting 
     the availability of funds for payment of salary or pay in any 
     fiscal year, the highest rate of pay established by the Mayor 
     under subsection (a) of this section for any position for any 
     period during the last quarter of calendar year 1994 shall be 
     deemed to be the rate of pay payable for that position for 
     September 30, 1994.
       (c) Notwithstanding section 4(a) of the District of 
     Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945, approved August 2, 1946 
     (60 Stat. 793; Public Law 79-592; D.C. Code, sec. 5-803(a)), 
     the Board of Directors of the District of Columbia 
     Redevelopment Land Agency shall be paid, during any fiscal 
     year, per diem compensation at a rate established by the 
     Mayor.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     provisions of the District of Columbia Government 
     Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, effective March 3, 
     1979 (D.C. Law 2-139; D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), 
     enacted pursuant to section 422(3) of the District of 
     Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act 
     of 1973, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 790; Public Law 
     93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(3)), shall apply with respect 
     to the compensation of District of Columbia employees: 
     Provided, That for pay purposes, employees of the District of 
     Columbia government shall not be subject to the provisions of 
     title 5 of the United States Code.
       Sec. 122. The Director of the Department of Administrative 
     Services may pay rentals and repair, alter, and improve 
     rented premises, without regard to the provisions of section 
     322 of the Economy Act of 1932 (Public Law 72-212; 40 U.S.C. 
     278a), upon a determination by the Director, that by reason 
     of circumstances set forth in such determination, the payment 
     of these rents and the execution of this work, without 
     reference to the limitations of section 322, is advantageous 
     to the District in terms of economy, efficiency, and the 
     District's best interest.
       Sec. 123. No later than 30 days after the end of the first 
     quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council 
     of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 1995 revenue 
     estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 
     1995. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. The officially 
     revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear 
     report.
       Sec. 124. Section 466(b) of the District of Columbia Self-
     Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, 
     approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 806; Public Law 93-198; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 47-326), as amended, is amended by striking 
     ``sold before October 1, 1994'' and inserting ``sold before 
     October 1, 1995''.
       Sec. 125. No sole source contract with the District of 
     Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or 
     extended without opening that contract to the competitive 
     bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District 
     of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985, effective 
     February 21, 1986 (D.C. Law 6-85; D.C. Code, sec. 1-1183.3), 
     except that the District of Columbia Public Schools may renew 
     or extend sole source contracts for which competition is not 
     feasible or practical, provided that the determination as to 
     whether to invoke the competitive bidding process has been 
     made in accordance with duly promulgated Board of Education 
     rules and procedures.
       Sec. 126. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99 
     Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-177), as amended, the term 
     ``program, project, and activity'' shall be synonymous with 
     and refer specifically to each account appropriating Federal 
     funds in this Act, and any sequestration order shall be 
     applied to each of the accounts rather than to the aggregate 
     total of those accounts: Provided, That sequestration orders 
     shall not be applied to any account that is specifically 
     exempted from sequestration by the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, approved December 12, 
     1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-177), as amended.
       Sec. 127. In the event a sequestration order is issued 
     pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99 Stat. 1037: 
     Public Law 99-177), as amended, after the amounts 
     appropriated to the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 
     involved have been paid to the District of Columbia, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall pay to the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, within 15 days after receipt of a request 
     therefor from the Secretary of the Treasury, such amounts as 
     are sequestered by the order: Provided, That the 
     sequestration percentage specified in the order shall be 
     applied proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation 
     accounts in this Act that are not specifically exempted from 
     sequestration by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99 Stat. 
     1037; Public Law 99-177), as amended.
       Sec. 128. Effective as if included in the enactment of the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1990, section 133(e) 
     of such Act is amended by striking ``shall take effect'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``shall apply with respect to 
     water and sanitary sewer services furnished on or after 
     January 1, 1990.''.
       Sec. 129. For the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, 
     the District of Columbia shall pay interest on its quarterly 
     payments to the United States that are made more than 60 days 
     from the date of receipt of an itemized statement from the 
     Federal Bureau of Prisons of amounts due for housing District 
     of Columbia convicts in Federal penitentiaries for the 
     preceding quarter.
       Sec. 130. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     authorize any office, agency or entity to expend funds for 
     programs or functions for which a reorganization plan is 
     required but has not been approved by the Council pursuant to 
     section 422(12) of the District of Columbia Self-Government 
     and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, approved 
     December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 1-242(12)) and the Governmental Reorganization 
     Procedures Act of 1981, effective October 17, 1981 (D.C. Law 
     4-42; D.C. Code, secs. 1-299.1 to 1-299.7). Appropriations 
     made by this Act for such programs or functions are 
     conditioned on the approval by the Council, prior to October 
     1, 1994, of the required reorganization plans.
       Sec. 131. (a) An entity of the District of Columbia 
     government may accept and use a gift or donation during 
     fiscal year 1995 if--
       (1) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift 
     or donation: Provided, That the Council of the District of 
     Columbia may accept and use gifts without prior approval by 
     the Mayor; and
       (2) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its 
     authorized functions or duties.
       (b) Each entity of the District of Columbia government 
     shall keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance 
     and use of any gift or donation under subsection (a) of this 
     section, and shall make such records available for audit and 
     public inspection.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``entity of 
     the District of Columbia government'' includes an independent 
     agency of the District of Columbia.
       (d) This section shall not apply to the District of 
     Columbia Board of Education, which may, pursuant to the laws 
     and regulations of the District of Columbia, accept and use 
     gifts to the public schools without prior approval by the 
     Mayor.
       Sec. 132. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each 
     agency, office, and instrumentality of the District shall 
     implement a hiring freeze and shall fill only vacancies in 
     essential positions, and to the extent practicable, shall 
     fill essential positions from among employees holding non-
     essential positions. A non-essential position that becomes 
     vacant, other than by termination for cause, shall not be 
     filled. The Council shall enact legislation to implement this 
     title, which may include, but shall not be limited to, 
     procedures for identifying essential and non-essential 
     positions, for filling vacant essential positions from among 
     employees holding non-essential positions, and for reporting 
     on implementation of the hiring freeze required by this 
     section.
       Sec. 133. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for 
     salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the 
     offices of United States Senator or United States 
     Representatives under section 4(d) of the District of 
     Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 
     1979, effective March 10, 1981 (D.C. Law 3-171; D.C. Code, 
     sec. 1-113(d)).
       Sec. 134. None of the Federal funds appropriated under this 
     Act shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made 
     known to the entity or official to which funds are 
     appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary 
     to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the 
     result of an act of rape or incest.


                 independent audit of retirement board

       Sec. 135. (a) In General.--The District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board shall enter into an agreement with an 
     independent firm meeting the qualifications described in 
     subsection (b) to prepare and submit to the Retirement Board 
     a written set of findings and recommendations not later than 
     6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act 
     regarding the appropriateness and adequacy of the Retirement 
     Board's fiduciary, management, and investment practices and 
     procedures.
       (b) Qualifications for Firm.--A firm meets the 
     qualifications described in this subsection if the firm has a 
     demonstrated expertise in the areas of investment and 
     investment consulting, particularly with respect to--
       (1) the review and analysis of the investment portfolios of 
     large public pension funds;
       (2) the investment practices of the managers of such funds;
       (3) the relationship of such practices to the fiduciary 
     responsibilities of the managers of such funds; and
       (4) the analysis of the investment returns achieved by such 
     funds on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after 
     receiving the findings and recommendations provided under 
     subsection (a), the Retirement Board shall submit a report to 
     the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate on the findings and 
     recommendations.
       (d) Expenditure of Funds.--The Retirement Board shall spend 
     not less than $250,000 from investment earnings to carry out 
     this section. No additional funds may be provided by the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia to the Retirement Board to 
     carry out this section.


                          municipal fish wharf

       Sec. 136. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be obligated or expended on any proposed change in either the 
     use or configuration of, or on any proposed improvement to, 
     the Municipal Fish Wharf until such proposed change or 
     improvement has been reviewed and approved by Federal and 
     local authorities including, but not limited to, the National 
     Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, and 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, in compliance with 
     applicable local and Federal laws which require public 
     hearings, compliance with applicable environmental 
     regulations including, but not limited to, any amendments to 
     the Washington, D.C. urban renewal plan which must be 
     approved by both the Council of the District of Columbia and 
     the National Capital Planning Commission.


                          financial reporting

       Sec. 137. (a) Submission of Quarterly Financial Reports.--
     Not later than fifteen days after the end of every calendar 
     quarter (beginning October 1, 1994), the Mayor shall submit 
     to the Committee on the District of Columbia of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate, and the Subcommittees on District of Columbia 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report on the financial and budgetary status of the 
     government of the District of Columbia for the previous 
     quarter.
       (b) Contents of Report.--Each report submitted under 
     subsection (a) with respect to a quarter shall include the 
     following information:
       (1) A comparison of actual to forecasted cash receipts and 
     disbursements for each month of that quarter, as presented in 
     the District's fiscal year consolidated cash forecast;
       (2) A projection of the remaining months' cash forecast for 
     that fiscal year;
       (3) Explanations of (a) the differences between actual and 
     forecasted cash amounts for each of the months in the 
     quarter, and (b) the changes in the remaining months' 
     forecast as compared to the original forecast for those 
     months of that fiscal year; and
       (4) The effect of these changes, actual and projected, on 
     the total cash balance of the remaining months and for the 
     fiscal year.
       This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1995''.

                                TITLE II

                     FISCAL YEAR 1994 SUPPLEMENTAL

                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

                   Governmental Direction and Support


                         (Including Rescission)

       For an additional amount for ``Governmental direction and 
     support'' $164,000: Provided, That of the funds appropriated 
     under this heading for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1994 in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1994, 
     approved October 29, 1993 (Public Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 
     1337), $18,797,000 are rescinded for a net decrease of 
     $18,633,000.

                  Economic Development and Regulation


                         (Including Rescission)

       For an additional amount for ``Economic development and 
     regulation'', $1,311,000: Provided, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1994 in the District of Columbia Appropriations 
     Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993 (Public Law 103-127; 107 
     Stat. 1337), $31,697,000 are rescinded for a net decrease of 
     $30,386,000.

                      Human Resources Development

       Human resources development, $42,801,000.

                       Public Safety and Justice


                         (Including Rescission)

       For an additional amount for ``Public safety and justice'', 
     $16,398,000: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under 
     this heading for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994 in 
     the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1994, approved 
     October 29, 1993 (Public Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1338), 
     $4,742,000 are rescinded for a net increase of $11,656,000.

                        Public Education System


                         (Including Rescission)

       For an additional amount for ``Public education system'', 
     $17,243,000 for public schools of the District of Columbia 
     and $735,000 for the University of the District of Columbia: 
     Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994 in the District 
     of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1994, approved October 29, 
     1993 (Public Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1339), $487,000 for the 
     Education Licensure Commission, $91,000 for the Commission on 
     the Arts and Humanities, $30,000 for the District of Columbia 
     Law School and $245,000 for the District of Columbia Public 
     Library are rescinded for a net increase of $17,125,000.

                         Human Support Services


                         (Including Rescission)

       For an additional amount for ``Human support services'', 
     $32,461,000: Provided, That $4,657,000 of this appropriation, 
     to remain available until expended, shall be available solely 
     for District of Columbia employees' disability compensation: 
     Provided further,  That of the funds appropriated under this 
     heading for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994 in the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1994, approved 
     October 29, 1993 (Public Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1340), 
     $831,000 are rescinded for a net increase of $31,630,000.

                              Public Works


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1994 in the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993 (Public 
     Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1340), $9,092,000 are rescinded.

                   Washington Convention Center Fund


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1994 in the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993 (Public 
     Law 103-127, 107 Stat. 1340), $338,000 are rescinded.

                    Repayment of Loans and Interest


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1994 in the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993 (Public 
     Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1340 and 1341), $15,161,000 are 
     rescinded.

                Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt

       For an additional amount for ``Repayment of General Fund 
     Recovery Debt'', $312,000.

                      Optical and Dental Benefits


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1994 in the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993 (Public 
     Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1341), $11,000 are rescinded.

                             Severance Pay

       For an additional amount for ``Severance pay'', $6,000,000.

                 D.C. General Hospital Deficit Payment


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1994 in the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993 (Public 
     Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1341), $5,500,000 are rescinded.

                           Cash Reserve Fund


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1994 in the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993 (Public 
     Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1341), $3,957,000 are rescinded.

                          Short-Term Borrowing

       For ``Short-term borrowing'', $3,500,000.

                    Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund


                              (Rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated under this heading for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1994 in the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993 (Public 
     Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1343), $9,411,000 are rescinded: 
     Provided, That $37,436,000 of the amounts available for 
     fiscal year 1994 shall be apportioned and payable to the debt 
     service fund for repayment of loans and interest incurred for 
     capital improvement projects instead of $40,438,000 as 
     provided under this heading in the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993 (Public 
     Law 103-127; 107 Stat. 1343).

              Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund

       For an additional amount for ``Lottery and Charitable Games 
     Enterprise Fund'', $1,235,000.

                    Cable Television Enterprise Fund

       The paragraph under the heading ``Cable Television 
     Enterprise Fund'' in the District of Columbia Appropriations 
     Act, 1994, approved October 29, 1993, is amended by inserting 
     after the figure ``$2,353,000'' the following: ``of which 
     $140,000 shall be transferred to the General Fund of the 
     District of Columbia.''.

                             Starplex Fund

       The paragraph under the heading ``Starplex Fund'' in the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1994, approved 
     October 29, 1993, is amended by inserting after the phrase 
     ``Television'' the following: ``and an additional $1,400,000 
     shall be transferred to the General Fund of the District of 
     Columbia.''.

                           General Provisions

       Sec. 201. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     appropriations made and authority granted pursuant to this 
     title shall be deemed to be available for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1994.

  Mr. DIXON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through line 2 on page 40 be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against the bill up to 
that portion?
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. dixon

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       On page 15, strike line 23 through line 9 on page 16.

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is technical in nature. We 
were trying to accommodate a member of the Committee on Appropriations, 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. It would have allowed the 
Secretary of the Army to borrow $10 million from the Secretary of the 
Treasury for capital projects for the Washington Aqueduct subject to 
approval of authorizing legislation.
  The problem is that CBO indicates that it would be scored against our 
bill. This language was not scored by CBO until yesterday and the 
scoring results in our exceeding our 602(b) allocation by $10 million.

                              {time}  1420

  I think it is a no-cost amendment. However, I am not in a position to 
argue with the CBO scoring so I am offering this amendment to strike 
that language.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     amendment offered by mr. dixon

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. It is marked 
``Compromise Amendment, #2, Offered by Mr. Dixon of California, Mr. 
Walsh of New York, and Mr. Bliley of Virginia.''
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Dixon: Page 33, after line 24, 
     insert the following new section:


                          spending reductions

       Sec. 138. (a) Reduction in Fiscal Year 1995 Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any other reduction 
     required by this Act, the total amount appropriated in this 
     title for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 1995 under 
     the caption ``Division of Expenses'' is hereby reduced by 
     $150,000,000. The reduction shall be allocated by the Mayor 
     of the District among the various appropriation headings 
     under such caption (excluding the ``Rainy Day Fund'') and 
     shall be taken only from expenses for personal and 
     nonpersonal services.
       (2) Reporting requirements.--
       (A) Implementation plan.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Mayor of the District 
     of Columbia shall submit to the Congress a report setting 
     forth a detailed plan for the implementation of the reduction 
     made by paragraph (1).
       (B) Plan revisions.--The Mayor may at any time revise the 
     implementation plan submitted under subparagraph (A). Not 
     later than 30 days after making any such revision, the Mayor 
     shall submit to the Congress a report setting forth a 
     detailed description and justification of such revision.
       (C) Revised cash flow statements.--Each report required by 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) shall include a revised cash flow 
     statement for the government of the District that 
     incorporates the reduction made by paragraph (1) and the 
     allocation of the reduction under the plan or plan revisions 
     submitted under this paragraph.
       (D) Supplemental budget submission.--Any supplemental 
     budget request for fiscal year 1995 submitted by the District 
     to the Congress shall incorporate the reduction made by 
     paragraph (1) and the allocation of the reduction under the 
     plan or plan revisions submitted under this paragraph.
       (b) Annual Limitation on Outlays.--
       (1) Aggregate limitation.--The total outlays of the 
     government of the District of Columbia during fiscal year 
     1995 shall not exceed the total receipts collected by the 
     government during such fiscal year.
       (2) Individual fund limitations.--The total outlays of the 
     government of the District of Columbia from the general fund, 
     or from any special fund, of the District during fiscal year 
     1995 shall not exceed the total receipts collected by the 
     government and paid into such fund during such fiscal year.
       (c) Enforcement.--
       (1) Timing of annual federal payment.--The annual Federal 
     payment to the District of Columbia authorized by section 
     502(a) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
     Governmental Reorganization Act for fiscal year 1996 shall 
     not be made until the Secretary of the Treasury has received 
     from the Mayor of the District a certification of the total 
     outlays of, and total receipts collected by, the government 
     of the District during the preceding fiscal year.
       (2) Reduction of annual federal payment.--The amount of any 
     annual Federal payment subject to paragraph (1) shall be 
     reduced by the amount (if any) by which the outlays described 
     in such paragraph exceed the receipts described in such 
     paragraph.
       (d) Applicability.--The provisions of this section shall 
     apply hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     to the contrary.

  Mr. DIXON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman and Members, this is the amendment I spoke 
about earlier and that others have made reference to. It is a 
compromise that has been reached through the efforts of my good friend 
and ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  Also I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] 
for his very valuable input, and I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Stark] for blessing this amendment.
  It is something that certainly is not the most desirable thing to do, 
but when we look at all of the circumstances involved in moving this 
bill including the response from the District government, offering this 
amendment was a necessary step to keep this bill moving.
  As I indicated before, it is my personal belief that if District 
officials are to operate in good faith in fiscal year 1995, they would 
have to cut $150 million anyway. I am sorry the cut is necessary, but I 
appreciate the cooperation that I have received from all Members of the 
House.
  I especially want to thank the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton], who I very thoroughly understand does not enjoy 
me doing this, and I have kept her informed. I just am sorry that I 
could not accommodate her in not reaching this agreement.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I would also 
like to extend my thanks to the principals in this agreement, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], our chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], ranking 
member on the authorizing committee.
  This agreement, I think, is the best we could get. That is the name 
of compromise.
  I do not think either side is totally happy with the agreement. I am 
sure the District is not happy with the agreement, and there may be 
others who think that we should do more.
  But what this agreement says is that we recognize that there is a 
fiscal crisis in the District of Columbia. The Congress is exerting its 
constitutionally prescribed authority in this area, but we are 
continuing to honor the premise of home rule. We are saying:

       We will not appropriate more than this amount. You decide 
     how you are going to spend it. You decide how you are going 
     to make the cuts that are required to meet this, and if you 
     spend more than we appropriate in this fiscal year, 1995, we 
     will dock you dollar for dollar in the next fiscal 
     appropriation next year if you overspend.

  The GAO report showed clearly year after year after year the District 
has sent up nonbalanced budgets to the Congress. If we are going to 
continue to have a home-rule agreement with the District of Columbia, 
they have to honor their portion of the agreement, which is to provide 
us with a balanced budget. We are continuing our end of the bargain. We 
are sticking with home rule. But in order for us to do that, they have 
to give us a balanced budget.
  This is going to go back to the Mayor and the council. They have 30 
days to respond positively. I hope they will do so.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I 
certainly want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. I want to 
thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh]. I want to thank the patience of the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. This is not something that we enjoy.
  But this is a bipartisan agreement, and it does require the District 
to cut $150 million for next year.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, the chairman of our 
authorizing committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], realized early on that the 
District's budget this year was in shambles and, therefore, they called 
in the General Accounting Office and requested a study. They got the 
study. We got the report, and the report confirmed our worst fears.
  Since that time, the chairman has been patient. He has given the 
District every opportunity to respond and, to date, they have yet to 
respond, or if they have, it has not been apparent to this Member.
  This amendment does not let the District government continue to spend 
more money than it takes in. This amendment sends a very strong message 
to the District government that Congress is concerned about the 
financial condition of our Nation's Capital.
  The bipartisan amendment tells the District government that business 
as usual is not good enough.
  This amendment removes any need for the two motions that I had 
planned to offer later today.
  We urge all Members to support this bipartisan amendment and get on 
with the business of this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that it is fair to say that no one wants to be 
in the position we find ourselves in today. I daresay that the chairman 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California, knows better than 
anyone the inherent problems of the District budget. It is the 
spotlight he has focused onto the District budget which has cast such a 
large shadow over this appropriations bill. He and Chairman Stark 
deserve our thanks for bringing the GAO report to life. Mr. Dixon 
deserves our admiration for his courage in protecting in the interests 
we all share in the Nation's Capital.
  The ranking member of the District of Columbia Appropriations 
Subcommittee, Mr. Walsh, also deserves our gratitude. He has 
demonstrated himself to be a true friend of the District and, at the 
same time, followed the courage of his convictions. He sees what is 
ahead and knows what must be done even if it is unpopular.
  Anyone who has followed the local news recently knows that the 
Delegate from the District of Columbia does not want to be in her 
position. Nevertheless, she will put on a spirited and admirable 
defense of a budget she knows is not defensible. And, to her great 
credit, she has not defended the city's failure to act responsibly.

  I can assure you that I do not want to be in the position that I am 
in today. I have helped provide the District with a cash infusion of 
more than $1 billion over the past few years. Believe me, I do not take 
any pleasure in saying that despite all of our efforts, the District is 
still facing a short-term financial crisis which pales in comparison to 
the long-term crisis dead ahead. District expenditures are growing at 
twice the rate of revenues and the annual budget deficit will grow to 
$742 million by the year 2000.
  The District of Columbia budget should not be a partisan issue. We 
all share responsibility for the Nation's Capital. We should not be 
divided between those who would have us do nothing despite the evidence 
we have and those of us who fully understand that the day of reckoning 
is here. The dire consequences of doing nothing far outweigh the modest 
proposal now being put before us.
  Mr. Chairman, some may regard the vote on this amendment as a minor 
one among the thousands of votes we cast each year which merits no 
special notice. Such appearances and perceptions are deceiving. This 
vote is, in fact, a turning point of historical significance. Much of 
what will happen in the future will spring from this vote.
  This vote will in large part shape the relationship between the 
District and the Congress for the remainder of this century. Clearly, 
Congress cannot stand idly by and watch the District collapse 
financially. Do you prefer to simply wait for a massive Federal 
bailout? Despite all of the other denials, city officials admit that 
additional Federal resources will be sought. According to the 
District's most recent cash flow statement, the District has just 
recently added another $31 million in Federal grants.
  If we do not demand that the District government adhere to necessary 
fiscal constraints, there is little hope that we will demand any 
semblance of discipline in the future. Do you prefer that the Federal 
Government step in and take over large parts of the local government's 
responsibilities? Do you prefer to tell your constituents that you are 
willing to increase the Federal payment while spending goes unchecked?
  I have been a strong supporter of the District and have worked hard 
on a bipartisan basis to help this great city. We all share 
responsibility for the Nation's Capital. But we cannot ignore the 
reality and the seriousness of the District's financial crisis. We have 
a fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayers to ensure that 
these funds are spent wisely and in accordance with Federal laws.
  In passing this amendment, I firmly believe that no other amendments 
to make reductions will be necessary. This is the toughest amendment 
possible. Let us pass the Chairman's amendment and send a strong, 
united message to the city.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton], to see if we can have a colloquy on what 
legislative course we are going to follow from here to voting.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia 
if he could answer a question for me at this point in time. I would 
like to ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]: The amendment 
that I have prepared on the Domestic Partnership Act comes at this same 
point in the bill. Now, as soon as we have the vote on the pending 
amendment, I am prepared to offer my amendment entitled ``No. 1'' at 
this point in the bill.
  What does the chairman intend to do at that point in time?
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is my 
understanding that it would be subject to a point of order if the 
gentleman were to raise the issue before the motion to rise. I would 
ask the Chair to rule on the point of order.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. If I do not offer the amendment at this point in 
time, assuming that there are no other amendments to the bill, the 
gentleman would then offer the motion to rise, at which point in time I 
would rise to attempt to defeat that?
  Mr. DIXON. That is correct. It is my understanding there is one 
further amendment at the desk. After that amendment, assuming it is the 
last one, I will hope to be recognized for a motion to rise.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I intend to speak on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] striking 
the domestic partnership arrangements from the District of Columbia 
bill, and will use the remainder of my time to try and clarify this.
  Now, I have great respect for the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon], my colleague from California, not only for his legislative 
skills but also for his intellect and his judgment. We just disagree on 
certain issues from time to time, most often these very passionate 
social issues. And I know that he is going to do what he has to do 
legislatively to try and defeat the Barton amendment, which would bar 
the District of Columbia from enforcing its domestic partners law.
  It puts a great burden on the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] to 
get the House to defeat the motion to rise, which would allow the 
Barton amendment to be offered. I have only seen this happen a few 
times in my 16 years. When we do defeat the motion to rise it is 
usually on a ratable vote, or those votes which might either come back 
to haunt Members or reward them in the next election, which for us, is 
only 118 days away.
  Now, here is what is so peculiar about the domestic partnership law 
as it stands now.

                              {time}  1430

  The wording of the law is so vague that it requires no proof of long-
time commitment from two people. Officials need only to rely on the 
honesty of the registrants. The ``partners'', so to speak, could live 
together only a few days and still receive employment, health, and 
government benefits.
  To be eligible, you only have to be friends, 18 years of age, and 
state in writing you care for one another. So, it is not just 
homosexuals, who may qualify. Since when does a governmental entity of 
any kind, particularly one with all the fiscal problems of the District 
of Columbia, provide benefits to people who merely like one another and 
cohabitate? Buddies from Vietnam, each one saved the other one's life 
at different times; two women who went all the way through grade 
school, through high school and college together, and they sign, ``I 
like this person.'' They would be eligible.
  And so the District of Columbia, with all of its fiscal problems, is 
going to start paying for things like a roommate's hospital bills? From 
my historical knowledge, this business of domestic partner benefits 
started in Seattle where they were trying to give privileged treatment 
to lesbian and homosexual partners.
  But they decided they could not be quite so brazen, they would take 
too much heat from the voters. To get around that they decided to make 
any roommate at all, whether in the fire department or the police 
department, eligible for benefits. This law denigrates marriage and 
family. It undermines the health care system, and I think it is a 
harbinger of the nightmare debate we are going to go through before the 
August district work period.
  Here are the facts, to my good friend, Mr. Dixon: In 1992, 235 
Members said ``no'' to benefits for domestic partners when it had a 
homosexual twist. In 1993, it increased to 251 Members, another clear 
majority saying ``no'' to benefits for domestic partners. And now we 
have to fight for a vote defeating Mr. Dixon's motion to rise, and we 
will probably get an even bigger vote, given the volatility of this 
election year, which is only 118 days away. That's because now we are 
talking about roomies, just plain old roommates getting a free ride 
from the people who pay taxes to the District of Columbia.
  This is madness. Defeat the motion to rise, give Mr. Barton the 
chance to offer his amendment. Let us be representatives, let the 
voters speak here, 118 days before the election. Let us get rid of this 
domestic partnership nonsense.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, for those Members who are watching this debate on 
television--and I respect the views of my colleague from California--I 
just want to remind them that the pending business is the Bliley-Walsh-
Dixon compromise amendment and that the vote at this point in time will 
be on that amendment and not on the domestic partnership issue.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the distinguished chairman for that 
clarification. I will have something to say about the red-herring 
Barton domestic partnership amendment at a later point.
  I wish to speak to the compromise amendment at this point. I want to 
express my appreciation for the very hard work, one might say the toil, 
of Chairman Dixon, ranking member Bliley, Chairman Stark, and ranking 
member Walsh.
  Chairman Dixon, with whom I have worked very closely, deserves very 
special and great respect because he has managed to pull no punches 
during this frightening budget ordeal and at the same time to continue 
to be the best friend the District has.
  What he had desired was tough love; what I am afraid has come about 
is harsh love. And I mean no oxymoron there.
  The alternatives that the chairman faced were, in my opinion, kill 
the District cutting amendments. I believe the many amendments that 
would have come on the floor, if accepted, would have sent the District 
right over the side into insolvency. I know that Chairman Dixon had 
hoped to focus the District on spending cuts and not to deny the 
District a single cent of its Federal payment. And he has succeeded in 
doing just that, miraculously.
  Even so, it is very, very difficult for me to support a directive 
from the Congress to the District to cut its budget in a specific 
amount. I have, as most Members know--and as I have had to tell even 
some District residents who have come here to ask me to try to get 
Congress to overturn District law--I have very firm self-government and 
home-rule principles that come from simply being an American; but, Mr. 
Chairman, I am compelled to support this compromise. I support it for 
three reasons: First, it is not a violation of home rule because the 
cuts are in spending and must be made by the District and not the 
Congress. Second, there are no cuts in the Federal payment. If there 
were, the District would be so cash-short it would, for example, be 
unable to pay the pension liability that its court order says it 
should.
  Finally, I support it, I suppose, because of the biblical reference, 
``If your ox be in the mire.'' Mr. Chairman, the District's ox is in 
the mire, and this compromise is the only way to get that ox out of the 
mire and through this House and over to the other body.
  The revenue cuts that the budget had attracted were murder, and I 
mean that literally. Those revenue cuts would have meant that the 
District could not have made the pension fund payment, that the 
District would have had little cash and DC has been waiting for the 
Federal payment because it needs immediate cash.
  Whatever cuts the District is going to make, it can make over time, 
but it needs immediate cash.
  Now, the spending cuts should have been initiated by the District. 
The District was paralyzed, perhaps, because this is an election 
season. I do not know all of the reasons. But I can tell you this: The 
$150 million is spending cuts that the District is now obliged to 
choose and to make is pitted against the number of cuts that this 
budget had already attracted.
  And that figure is $378,611,590. That is the aggregate amount of cuts 
in amendments that we have tallied up today as opposed to $150 million, 
which is the harsh cut the District is left with to do in its own way.
  May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I never envisioned that the day would 
come when the District would be compelled to submit to such a 
compromise and I would have to accept such a compromise. I followed 
Chairman Dixon every step of the way; we have consulted, we have 
labored, we have tried every single option. I know well, after going 
through that ordeal, that it is either this compromise or we risk 
greater sacrifice. And I emphasize: getting no appropriation at all.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dixon and by unanimous consent, Ms. Norton was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, there were three kinds of amendments. There were very 
specific amendments to make cuts, they were legion. There was an 
amendment to cut the Federal payment, which would have left the city 
even further cash-starved. And then there were simply punitive 
amendments that had little to do with the fiscal condition of the city.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the saddest day I have spent in the House.
  Now, it is inherently difficult to represent the District in this 
Congress, because everybody else gets into your business. But I regard 
that as a challenge, not as a cause for sadness. Today I am sad because 
of what the chairman has had to accept. The only person who knows how 
sad I am is Chairman Dixon himself, because he has fought the good 
fight for the District for 14 years; it is only my 4th.
  The chairman has never lost a battle, and he has not lost the battle 
this year. He has given up more on the battlefield than he should have 
had to give, but he has saved the Federal payment.
  The fiscal crisis of the District is at the root of all we do today.

                              {time}  1440

  This is a crisis not unlike the one I found when I came to Congress, 
when the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] in one important miracle 
got $100 million for the city, then another 200 million. I want to 
thank my colleagues for the bipartisanship of 1991. I want to say to 
them that I will work with the city and with my colleagues so that we 
can return to the bipartisanship of 1991, which is support for the 
Nation's Capital, and move from the bipartisanship of 1994, where both 
parties have gotten together to mandate cuts in spending. I regret that 
it is the best we could do, but at least the District will have its 
full appropriation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  amendment offered by mr. richardson

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Richardson: Page 4, line 3, insert 
     before the period the following: ``: Provided further, That 
     the Mayor shall expend $200,000 of this appropriation for the 
     D.C. Schools Project for intensive intervention and youth 
     development initiatives for high risk Hispanic teenagers''.

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson] 
for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
force the Mayor of the District to expend $200,000 of this 
appropriations bill for the D.C. schools project.
  Mr. Chairman, an increasing number of Hispanics are becoming involved 
in gangs and illegal or dangerous activities in the District, and this 
project is going to use the money for intensive intervention and youth 
development initiatives for high-risk Hispanic teenagers. Hispanic 
youth will then be able to learn about alternative opportunities to 
crime and become conscientious and concerned citizens within the 
District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, the root of the problem is that Hispanic issues within 
the District of Columbia continue to receive little support from the 
Mayor. Let me say that the chairman of the Committee on the District of 
Columbia and the delegate for the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] in 
my judgment have done outstanding work, not just with their own 
communities, but with the Hispanic community, so my criticism is mainly 
at the Mayor and the Mayor's office, and I want to take this moment to 
send a strong message to the Mayor and her administration to fund more 
Hispanic projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I have long felt that the D.C. officials do not do 
enough for Hispanics. That is the bottom line as to why I am offering 
this amendment. Sometimes their insensitivity to Hispanic issues must 
be confronted, and I regret to say that I cannot any longer be silent 
about this issue.
  I also want to express my resentment and disappointment with the 
manner in which D.C. officials responded to my efforts at funding a 
project which assists Hispanic youth. Instead of supporting my efforts 
and asking Congress for more money to help a Hispanic program, I was 
criticized for attempting to cut other programs in other parts of their 
budget, in particular the Office of Latino Affairs, and the Federal and 
congressional offices completely misunderstood my attempt in offering 
this amendment in assisting Hispanics in this district and 
inappropriately stated that my project was detrimental to the District 
of Columbia. In short, the responses of officials from the District 
were condescending and, in my judgment, inappropriate.
  So, at this time I would like to respectfully ask the distinguished 
chairman, who, as I mentioned, is enormously sensitive to Hispanic 
issues in the District, to engage with me in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, does the Mayor of the District of Columbia have the 
power to modify the funding in her budget to support Hispanic projects 
in the District?
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RICHARDSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. Yes, the Mayor has the power to modify the funds in the 
District of Columbia budget to fund more Hispanic programs.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, although Hispanics are considered to be 
the fastest growing minority in the United States, does the gentleman 
agree that Hispanic programs continue to receive a disproportionate 
lack of support from the Mayor of the District of Columbia?
  Mr. DIXON. Yes. In my opinion, the Mayor could indeed extend more 
support to programs within the District of Columbia that focus on 
assisting Hispanics, and I would further point out that, in my opinion, 
the recommendations of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission as published in 
the January 1993 report entitled ``Racial and Ethnic Tensions in 
American Communities'', would substantiate your statement.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time the gentleman has 
allowed me to express my concerns for the lack of support for Hispanic 
programs by the Mayor. In short, I am going to continue to work with 
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus. 
We are going to be asking the mayor to come and explain some of the 
Hispanic programs in the District.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Richardson] is withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act, 1994''.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Barton] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I had been prepared to offer an 
amendment to the bill that would have prevented any funds in this bill 
from being expended to implement the Domestic Partnership Act that the 
District of Columbia passed on April 15, 1992. The amendment that I was 
prepared to offer is identical to an amendment that was offered and 
accepted last year by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the 
year before that by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. Evidently, 
Mr. Chairman, in the last 2 previous years points of order could have 
been placed against the same amendment, but they were not. This year 
the chairman has indicated earlier that he would make such a point of 
order.
  I want to explain the point of order. Under the appropriation bills, 
Mr. Chairman, one can offer a specific cutting amendment to specific 
items in the bill. Since in the last 2 years the Congress has gone on 
record specifically not to allow any money to be spent to implement the 
Domestic Partnership Act in the District of Columbia, as passed, there 
has been no money spent. So, the language that I had and which is 
identical to that of the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] simply says no funds made available. 
Evidently that point of order could be raised against that.
  So, I want everybody to be perfectly clear on this motion to rise. 
This is not a procedural vote. It is a substantive vote. We have sent 
out extensive materials around the country, both in writing and through 
the audio and video media, that the motion to rise that the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dixon] is preparing to offer is going to be rated 
as a substantive vote. Senator Lott, a distinguished Senator from the 
other body from the great State of Mississippi, has indicated to me 
that he is going to offer this amendment in the Senate.
  So, this issue is not going to go away. If in fact we are successful 
in defeating the motion to rise, I will offer the amendment, and I am 
confident that it will be passed. The reason it is important to defeat 
the motion to rise is because, as I indicated earlier, the definition 
of family in this ordinance that the District of Columbia has passed is 
not a definition of family that one is going to find in the dictionary. 
It is not a definition of family that deals with brothers, and sisters, 
and aunts, and uncles, and fathers, and mothers, and cousins, and 
nephews. It is simply any two people that are 18 years old who happen 
to live in the same building, the same domicile, can go down and 
certify to the Mayor of the District of Columbia that they are a 
family. Now, if they change their mind, every 6 months they can submit 
a written certification that they are no longer a family and can have a 
different family.
  This goes directly against the institution of marriage, it goes 
directly against any widely accepted definition of what a family ought 
to be. It has tremendous consequences. It could cost anywhere from $1 
million, which is a low estimate that I have been able to obtain, up to 
as much as $40 million a year if it were to actually be implemented.
  So, I would strongly recommend that we defeat this motion to rise, 
allow me to offer the amendment, and then have a vote on the amendment.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. STERNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the actions by my friend, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. The motion to rise should be 
defeated to reaffirm what this House has done in previous years, which 
is to eliminate funding for the Domestic Partnership Act. This action 
seeks to put back into the bill the language the House passed last year 
which simply states that ``no funds shall be used'' to enact the 
Domestic Partnership Act.
  It seems incredible that at a time when the District of Columbia has 
once again shown its inability to put its fiscal affairs in order, this 
act would expand their budgetary responsibilities. If the District 
cannot meet its obligations now, then why expand them?
  This amendment inserts what is missing in this bill, a fiscally 
responsible message that expanding the District's budgetary obligations 
into unsound social policies is not what the City Council or Mayor 
should be concentrating on. The American taxpayer is subsidizing a 
growing city deficit and shouldn't be asked to accept responsibility 
for more, when this body has the ability to at least slow it down.
  Common sense, if anything at all, tells us that this domestic 
partners law is not a responsible plan for expanding access to health 
care in the District of Columbia. Besides giving health benefits and 
sick leave to both heterosexual and homosexual couples who merely state 
they are in a mutually caring relationship this law gives the 
appearance that the Congress endorses such behavior. This act is 
nothing more than a revolving door for people who do not wish to enter 
into marriage but still want to receive all the legal and social perks 
of the institution. Passage of this bill would mean that a domestic 
partner merely has to go downtown, fill out a government form stating 
that they are domestic partners, share a street address, and you now 
are entitled to health benefits if your friend works for the District.
  Other cities across this Nation have followed Congress' lead of last 
year and vetoed or rescinded domestic partnership laws. If the rest of 
the country is waking up to this social experiment at taxpayers expense 
and saying, ``no more,'' Congress should do the same.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, you will note that even given the contentiousness that 
has surrounded this budget year, this is the first amendment to be 
offered that was not a bipartisan amendment. I ask my colleagues not to 
dissolve the bipartisan spirit that we have embraced, some of us very 
reluctantly. Earlier I called the Barton anti-domestic partnership 
amendment a red herring amendment. Mr. Chairman, that is a polite word 
for it. My colleagues, this is a sucker amendment. It is designed to 
make people put themselves on record on homosexual marriage, that has 
nothing to do with the domestic partnership law. If you look at some of 
the ``Dear Colleagues'' that have been handed out, you will see that.
  Now, I do not know about the district of the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Barton], but let me tell you about my district, sir. The law's 
chief effect in my district is on extended families.
  The typical beneficiary would be two working single mothers living in 
the same household, and one is a DC employee, and the other works for 
some hotel downtown that is nonunionized and has no health benefits. 
She can get on the health benefit plan of the women in the house with 
whom she lives.
  Moreover, it is absolutely false that there is a single dollar of 
taxpayer funds involved here. This health benefit must be paid 100 
percent by the recipient of the benefit.
  Now, this has been framed as an amendment that is outside of the 
family tradition, that supports heterosexual and homosexual, illicit, 
relationships. If that is the case, my friend, why is it then supported 
by the National Council of Senior Citizens? Why is it then supported by 
the District of Columbia Nurses Association? Why is it then supported 
by the Gray Panthers? Why is it then supported by the Concerned Clergy 
of the District of Columbia? Why is it then supported by Church Women 
United? Are they accustomed to supporting illicit relationships?
  Shame on you. Take it back. Members, do not be used by a Member who 
has a personal political ax to grind involving his district. The 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] represents part of Dallas County. 
They had a big brouhaha down there about domestic partnership, a 
different kind of domestic partnership. But leave that stuff in Texas, 
and let my constituents rule themselves in the name of democracy.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] may be running on homosexual 
marriage, but few of the rest of us in this House are. I ask you, my 
colleagues, do not get suckered into a vote on a local issue that has 
been mischaracterized to the benefit of those who want to make you go 
on the line and cast your vote on a controversial vote. Vote for the 
Dixon motion to rise.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like the distinguished 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] to answer a 
question for me, if she would.
  First let me say that I have the greatest respect. I think as you 
said yourself, you have a difficult job in representing the District of 
Columbia, and you have done an excellent job. There is absolutely no 
personal animosity or political partisanship in me offering this 
amendment.
  I would simply ask you the question, that if you actually look at the 
law itself, or the city ordinance itself, it is very specific in 
section 2, subparagraph C, that these domestic partners not be married. 
I mean, that is the plain language of the law.
  Then if you go on down later on page 1, subsection 2, subparagraph 7, 
sub-paragraph B, a family member can be, as defined by this, any 
unmarried person, regardless of age, who is incapable of self support 
because of a mental or physical disability that existed before age 22.
  Now, I do not believe that I am being partisan or action grinding at 
all to say that that does not meet any definition I am comfortable with 
as a family.
  Would the distinguished gentlewoman like to respond to that?
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I want to say 
to the gentleman, I recognize that the gentleman does not submit his 
amendment in any personal animosity to the District. My passion has to 
do with my concern that my constituents have the right to have a 
domestic partnership law if they desire, just as yours have recently 
voted to, in their democratic right, take back a domestic partnership 
law.
  Let me respond to the reason that the law says the people must be 
unmarried. The reason is that if they are already married, they are 
automatically entitled to share.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Exactly.
  Ms. NORTON. If I could just finish, if they are not, even though they 
are living as a family, they may well not be entitled to the same 
rights.

                              {time}  1500

  For example, my son just graduated from college. Therefore, he is off 
of my insurance, my health insurance. If I were a District employee, he 
could get back on my health insurance because he is living in the same 
house with me.
  Typically in my district, where single households predominate, we 
have low-income working women. One of them may be a District employee. 
She has access to a group plan. Someone who has no plan ought to be 
able to come on.
  Therefore, they are living as a family. And in my community people 
live in extended families. I would like them to be able to take 
advantage of this law.
  (On request of Mr. Barton of Texas, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Istook was allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we will have to vote upon this issue of the 
domestic partners law of the District of Columbia. On the motion to 
rise, we have the opportunity to vote, and I can guarantee that this is 
going to come back. And nobody is going to be able to escape a vote by 
voting for the motion to rise. Because when this bill comes back from 
the Senate, they are going to do the same thing that they did last 
year. They are going to assure that the prohibition against spending 
money to implement this domestic partners law is in this piece of 
legislation. And then it can come back on a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Look at the history of this. Two years ago we had a vote in this 
House on a motion to instruct conferees. I would remind all concerned, 
especially anyone who contends that this is not bipartisan, 2 years ago 
235 Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for 
the very language that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], is 
promoting today. It passed by 235 to 173.
  Last year, in this bill, this same language passed by a vote of 253 
to 167, an even stronger vote than the year before.
  When this bill got over to the Senate last year, the subcommittee 
took the language out, and they put it right back in on the Senate 
floor. And they will do the same thing again this year. And we will 
still have to vote.
  If Members want inconsistent votes on their records, if they want 
people to say, my goodness, you voted against the motion to rise and, 
therefore, you voted to permit funding of homosexual marriages and 
domestic partners in the District of Columbia, then vote against the 
motion to rise and Members will have inconsistent records on their 
votes. And they will properly be attacked for it.
  If Members vote for the amendment, then vote against the motion to 
rise. And the vote ought to be along the same lines as last year. This 
should prevail in a bipartisan vote. We cannot escape our obligation. 
The Home Rule Charter of the District of Columbia, in section 601, 
keeps the authority with this Congress, not with the City Council of 
the District of Columbia, not with the local government, but with this 
Congress over the exactments of the District.
  Article 1, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gives us 
exclusive power over legislation in all cases whatsoever involving the 
District of Columbia.
  We cannot escape our obligation, and I am really amazed to hear a 
contention that this has nothing to do with homosexual marriage.
  I used to work in a meat plant. I know baloney when I see it or when 
I smell it and when I hear it. And we have had some baloney on that. I 
have been on local talk shows having carried this amendment last year. 
Who was it that was on there to be the advocates for this? It was the 
gay and lesbian alliances and caucuses, because they want this because 
it is their effort to have homosexual marriage legalized in any part of 
the country that they can get it legalized in.
  Read the Washington Blade, the newspaper of the homosexual community 
in this area. Members will find that they promote it. Claiming that 
this is just so people can pretend to be a family and adopt a legal 
fiction to try to deceive an insurance company about who is qualified 
for family coverage is nonsense. Are we going to pass a law just so 
that we can help people try to pull the wool over the eyes of an 
insurance company about who is a family and who is not a family? Why 
not declare the whole District one big happy family then? Let everybody 
be covered under one person's family policy?
  The real issue here is the American family. Do we believe that a 
family is a unit that begins with a husband and a wife and expands from 
there and it goes into children and into multiple generations and the 
aunts and uncles. It is a relationship that is born of marriage, and it 
is a heterosexual marriage relationship. This is about undercutting the 
institution of marriage.
  If Members want to undercut marriage, vote to rise and cut off the 
amendment. If Members want to vote for the family, vote not to rise so 
that we can pass the Barton amendment as we have in the last 2 years.
  I offered this amendment in subcommittee this year. I made an offer. 
I said, let us put it in subcommittee so we do not have to fight it out 
on the floor. Members do not have to have a vote on the record. Members 
were not willing to do that. So we are here, we are fighting it out on 
the floor. But do not be deceived what this is about. This is a vote 
about the families of the United States. Vote for the family. Vote 
against the motion to rise.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to, and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dixon].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 236, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               AYES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klein
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--236

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lancaster
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Tucker
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bishop
     Gallo
     Huffington
     Laughlin
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     Obey
     Rowland
     Slattery
     Whitten

                              {time}  1527

  Messrs. WILLIAMS, ROBERTS, EDWARDS of Texas, de la GARZA, ORTIZ, 
CHAPMAN, and SPRATT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KENNEDY, HEFNER, BEVILL, and POMEROY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise and report was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1530


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 33, after line 24, 
     insert the following new section:

            purchase of american-made equipment and products

       Sec. 138. Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all 
     equipment and products purchased with funds made available in 
     this Act should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each agency of 
     the Federal or District of Columbia government, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a Buy American amendment. It was 
placed on all other 12 appropriation bills. It is not being contested.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to accept the gentleman's 
amendment. I have no problem with it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Committee as a 
whole approve the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                amendment offered by mr. barton of texas

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barton of Texas: Page 33, after 
     line 24, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 138. No funds made available pursuant to any provision 
     of this Act shall be used to implement or enforce any system 
     of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples whether they 
     are homosexual, lesbian, or heterosexual, including but not 
     limited to registration for the purpose of extending 
     employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples 
     on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally 
     married couples; nor shall any funds made available pursuant 
     to any provision of this Act otherwise be used to implement 
     or enforce D.C. Act 9-188, signed by the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia on April 15, 1992.

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank all of my 
colleagues who voted to defeat the motion to rise so that I could offer 
this amendment.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we need to have a 
lengthy debate on this. Simply put, this is the identical amendment 
that was the Istook amendment last year and the DeLay amendment 2 years 
ago. It is identical to the amendment that Senator Lott has attached.
  Once again, I do not think there needs to be an extensive debate. 
This language is identical to language voted on last year and the year 
before. It simply says that no funds made available pursuant to this 
appropriation bill can be used to implement or enforce the District of 
Columbia's Domestic Partnership Act.
  I would ask there be a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I will at 
the appropriate time ask for a recorded vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I would at this point in time either reserve the 
balance of my time or yield it back, depending on the parliamentary 
situation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must do either. It is totally the choice 
of the gentleman.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman realizes he was recognized for 5 minutes 
on his amendment?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Right. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that we 
need to have an extensive debate though. I think Members know the 
issue. We have defeated the motion to rise. We discussed the issue 
before we defeated the motion to rise. I would ask for a ``yes'' vote 
on the Barton amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot reserve, because he was recognized 
for 5 minutes under the general 5-minute rule.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then I would yield back the balance of my time, 
Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the situation based on my 
unanimous-consent request, 15 minutes was allotted to me as opponent of 
the amendment, and 15 minutes was allotted to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Barton]. Is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not hear that in the request.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that that request be 
granted.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair clarify the procedure once 
more, please, how the time is divided, and who controls?
  The CHAIRMAN. It was that there be 30 minutes of additional debate 
time on this amendment, not to exceed that. Then there was a further 
proposal that the debate time be equally divided, 15 minutes on each 
side.
  Mr. WALSH. Between the proponent and opponent, and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton] would control 15 minutes for the proponent?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon] stands in opposition and would control the other 15 minutes.


 amendment offered by mr. dixon to the amendment offered by mr. barton 
                                of texas

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Dixon to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Barton of Texas: Insert the word ``Federal'' after the 
     word ``No'' and before the word ``funds''.

  Mr. DIXON. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the Representative from the District of Columbia was 
absolutely correct when she said this is a local matter, and my 
amendment inserts the word ``Federal,'' thereby prohibiting the use of 
Federal funds to implement the Domestic Partners' Act.
  We are not the city council. We could not do this in any other 
jurisdiction. I think it is only appropriate, if we do it at all, to 
say that the Federal money not be used for this purpose.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time?
  Mr. DIXON. No. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the perfecting amendment. It is simply a 
subterfuge. If you allow the addition of the word ``Federal'' you are 
simply giving the District of Columbia the opportunity to shuffle funds 
around.
  Again, I reiterate, the amendment, the original Barton amendment 
before the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon], is identical to language adopted last year and the year before 
in this body and also the other body.
  I would strongly oppose the Dixon amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote 
on that amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I must say that I do not 
have a very high expectation that I am going to get a lot of courtesy 
today, but the debate should go forward.
  I was about to ask a parliamentary inquiry because I was wondering 
whether logic would be allowed in this debate. I am assuming it will be 
allowed, but not highly valued, because the argument, somehow, put 
forward is that families are being undermined by what the District of 
Columbia did. And even by the somewhat strained logical standards I am 
prepared to apply from time to time in this House, I cannot understand 
how that is supposed to work.
  What the District of Columbia has said is if two people who are 
living together want to register as domestic partners, they can do so. 
And we are told that this will undermine the family.
  Now, many of the people who will be taking advantage of this, as the 
gentlewoman from Washington has pointed out, will be people who are in 
no particular loving relationship of a sexual sort. But what has 
clearly roiled some of the Members here is that some of the people who 
will take advantage of this will be gay or lesbian couples, and that, I 
gather, is how this is supposed to undermine the family.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to tell you that I do not understand for the 
life of me how the fact that I will go home tonight and have dinner 
with Herb undermines anybody else's family. I do not begin to 
understand the logic.
  I understand there are people who are so motivated by anger toward 
others that they are resentful that other people might find some 
happiness, and they consider it their mission in life to interfere with 
the happiness of others solely for that purpose.
  But to argue that this somehow undermines their families has no 
logical basis. The only thing I can think of is that they were very 
impressed at an early age by the V-8 commercial. You remember the V-8 
commercial. You remember the commercial where the guy is drinking a 
tomato juice, drinking stringbean juice, and he is drinking whatever 
else, and then someone gives him a V-8 and he says, ``By God, I could 
have had a V-8.'' Apparently, the analogs are happily married 
heterosexuals all over Washington, DC, indeed all over America, and 
they learned that in Washington, DC, Herb and I could register as 
domestic partners, and these happily married people say, ``God, I could 
have married a guy.''
  I mean are we really the V-8 of America? Is the attractive power of 
the way I live my life so great that you fear that happily married 
couples will somehow dissolve their bonds, ignore their children, and 
come knock at our doors? That is, of course, nonsense, even by the 
standards that some of the nonsense purveyors of this place specialize 
in. And it makes it very clear we are not talking about undermining a 
family.
  No one thinks that the recognition by the District of Columbia of the 
right of two men who love each other or two women who love each other 
to try to be responsible and share each other's lives responsibly, that 
that undermines anybody's family. It does not undermine my family or 
Herb's family. We coexist very happily with our family.
  But I do not understand the logic. What is it about the fact that a 
couple of people have found happiness that so offends you?
  What is it that drives you to try to make political capital by 
inflicting misery on other people? What is it that says we have a duty 
to interfere with the lives of others? The gentleman from California 
made a reasonable proposal. The gentleman from California's proposal 
says, ``All right, there will not be any Federal money.
  And by the way, I hope on will tell me under oath that they are doing 
this to save money, because we are going to have a U.S. attorney in 
here making an arrest. No one thinks this is about money. This is about 
anger at other people's way of living, with this phony argument that 
somehow it is going to undermine the family.
  What we are talking about is an amendment by the gentleman from 
California that says, ``OK, no Federal money.'' Let the District of 
Columbia make its own decisions. And what we have is a majority of 
Members, apparently, that they hope are going to say ``no,'' the 
District of Columbia cannot recognize that two men or two women might 
find comfort in each other and might want to share each other's lives 
and we are so offended by that that we are going to ban it, we are 
going to prevent it, we are going to forbid it, under some pretext.
  And again, I would be delighted if someone later in this debate would 
explain to me how that undermines the family. How does it destroy the 
family? If it is not the power of attraction, what is it? What is it 
that would take a happy marriage between a man and a woman, and as a 
matter of fact, by the way, the attractive power of this particular V-8 
must be extraordinary because no one is talking about anything that 
meets the benefits of marriage. We are not talking about the tax 
benefits of marriage, we are not talking about a whole range of other 
things married couples can do. We are talking about some minimalist 
situation in which people might be able to grant health benefits 
together.
  Let us be very clear what we are talking about. We are talking about 
a combination of some people whose primary motivation is dislike, to 
the point of irrationality, of other human beings and who have decided 
to use the elevated position of a Member of the greatest legislative 
body in the world and the greatest democracy in the world--and I mean 
to include the Senate in that comparison--these are people who want to 
use that elevated position simply to make some other people's lives 
miserable because they do not approve of their lives. That is what we 
are talking about.
  This is an effort to impose a punishment on other people. This is not 
a case about money, and there is not even a rational beginning about 
how we offend families.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman was 
going to explain how this happens. Let me then say, in conclusion, to 
my colleagues: I understand the political problems. I understand that 
many of these gentlemen know what the right thing to do is, but fear 
politically what will happen to them if they do it. That is a fact of 
life.
  I do not counsel political suicide, but I would ask my colleagues on 
both sides: Think about it. Barry Goldwater today wrote a column in the 
Washington Post which was an excellent argument. There were people who 
said, ``Well, we are not for discriminating, but we going to make an 
exception for the military.'' Barry Goldwater has asked people, this 
genuinely honest conservative who believes in the right of individuals 
to be left alone, Barry Goldwater has set it down. Let me say to my 
colleagues, particularly to some of my colleagues on this side: I 
believe that most of them, not all of them but for most of them, ``In 
your heart you know he is right. Why don't you do the right thing?''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] has expired.
  The Chair will advise those Members controlling the debate time that 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. barton] has 14 minutes remaining and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] has 7 minutes remaining and 
reserves the right, under the rule, to close debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the same attention to my remarks that 
has just been given to the distinguished Representative from 
Massachusetts.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise the Member, as he did in making 
the remarks, that every Member seeking recognition will be granted the 
full courtesy of this body; otherwise the Chair will not proceed.

                             {time}    1550

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, that the Barton 
amendment is not about anger, it is not about preventing consenting 
adults from finding happiness. If any two individuals in the District 
of Columbia, or anywhere in this great country of ours, wished to 
engage in some sort of a relationship, I have absolutely no problem 
with that. What this amendment is about, though, is preventing a 
definition of ``family'' going on the books in the District of Columbia 
that is not in congruence with any definition of ``family'' that has 
historically been recognized in our society.
  I think it may be, again, in order to read some of the definitions 
from the actual ordinance. First, the title, Health Care Benefits 
Expansion Act, Expansion Act, of 1992, and then, when we get down to 
where it does define ``family'' it says a family member means a 
domestic partner, which has already been defined as anybody who is at 
least 18 years old and living in the same domicile. It goes on to say 
that a family member can also be any unmarried person regardless of age 
who is incapable of self-support because of a mental or physical 
disability, and, as we all know, a mental disability can be diagnosed 
in a very broad way.
  I think it is also appropriate to understand that under the 
Constitution of this great Nation we have what is called a reciprocity 
agreement between the States, and, although the District of Columbia is 
not a State under the terms of reciprocity agreements, the local 
ordinances sometimes have the effect of State law, and, if we were to 
allow this Health Care Benefits Extension Act to actually be 
implemented, it is at least arguable that people could come from all 
over the Nation, register their domestic partnership in the District, 
go back to their home State and demand reciprocity. I am not saying 
that that would happen; I am saying that it could happen.
  I would also remind the great Members of this body that we are 
suspending reality to say that there is no organized effort to have 
some of these domestic partnership agreements recognized somewhere in 
the country and that there is an organized effort to do that. There is 
simply no reason to do that here in the District of Columbia, and 
again----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First, the reciprocity would apply if 
they had domestic partnerships in other States, but no one has ever 
argued that a domestic partnership, not marriage, but a domestic 
partnership, would give them any reciprocal rights in any other States.
  Second, I would like to ask the gentleman, because he put out 
literature which said, if the District of Columbia does this, it 
undermines the family; so, would he explain to me how it undermines the 
family? Does he mean that the power of attraction of this in the 
District of Columbia would lead other people to abandon their marriages 
or decide not to get married in the first place? What does the 
gentleman mean when he said, not that it would change the definition, 
but what did he mean when he said it would undermine the family?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. There is a definition of ``family'' in this act 
that is not in congruence with any definition of ----
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How does it undermine other families?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, ``It's my 
time,'' and I would also point out that there is no residency 
requirement in this ordinance. People from anywhere in the Nation could 
come over here, could come to the District of Columbia, and register 
their partnerships.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton] for yielding to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen will suspend for just a moment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think we should have a debate if 
the gentleman from Massachusetts wants to have a debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will certainly allow for that.
  The time is controlled by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. He 
may yield it and reclaim it at will.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat that I 
believe the reciprocity argument has no validity, that no one would 
claim reciprocity or be granted it, no lawyer would find it, in this 
simple limited health benefits thing, but the more important point is, 
yes, the gentleman has said that this is a different type of family, et 
cetera.
  By the way, I would be willing to strike the word ``family'' and tell 
them to give the exact same thing, but do not call it family. I do not 
think that would solve the gentleman's problem, but I also want to 
understand how does this undermine families.
  I would understand the English language to mean, when one says that 
this undermines families, that it means it is a problem for other 
families, that other than those people who voluntarily choose to do 
this, this somehow would undercut the likelihood or ability of other 
people to form families of husband, and wife, and children, and I do 
not understand how I am undermining anybody else's family if I decided 
to register as a domestic partnership.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that if the 
gentleman allows a definition of family to go on the books in the 
District of Columbia, it certainly, arguably, could be used in other 
legal proceedings to totally change the definition of family, and I do 
not think that is necessary.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I think first we need to remember what we 
are on is an amendment to the Barton amendment. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] has said, rather than saying that no money can 
be used since all of the District of Columbia's money has to be 
appropriated through this bill, instead of saying no money can be used, 
let us say no Federal money. The effect of the Dixon amendment is to 
make the Barton amendment totally meaningless because it says to the 
District of Columbia, ``You can still have what you want to call the 
domestic partners law, you can still have all of the problems, all of 
the consequences, all of the effects that we have been talking about.'' 
That is what the Dixon amendment would do.
  And what does it really mean? I say to my colleagues, if you look at 
the bill, the money in the bill that is approved for spending by the 
District of Columbia is about $3.4 billion. Where does it come from? 
Six hundred and sixty-eight million dollars of it comes from a direct 
Federal appropriation. Fifty-two million dollars of it comes from 
Federal pension funds. And if you look on page 7 of the bill report, 
you will find of the $3.4 billion another $777 million comes from other 
Federal grants and programs so that you have a total of $1.5 billion of 
Federal funds coming into the District of Columbia.
  In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, if you 
will look on page 80 of the report, you will find the District also 
receives $500 million from the Federal Government to run cultural, 
educational, and similar attractions.
  This money that comes into the District of Columbia, can you tell 
what is Federal and what is not? If I pulled this dollar out of this 
pocket, and I say, ``This is Federal money,'' and I pull this dollar 
out of this pocket and say, ``This is State money,'' and I put them 
together in my wallet, can you tell which is which?
  If my colleagues say the District can spend one of these dollars but 
not the other, then they are approving the domestic partners provision 
of the District of Columbia, and they are undermining the family.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is wanting to undermine 
families by changing the definition, by saying that it is no longer, 
and I will not yield. I do not have time to yield, we have heard plenty 
from the other side.
  We have the bill redefine family member. It is in the District of 
Columbia, a new definition that can be taken and will be argued from 
State to State that this is what a family means. It is not just 
homosexual partners. The language of the District of Columbia act also 
makes family members out of heterosexuals that are living together. But 
it is fascinating to me that in the earlier debate on the bill we heard 
a claim that this bill has nothing to do with homosexuals living 
together and wanting a legal recognition of that. Now we hear from the 
Massachusetts gentleman that that is exactly what is being promoted by 
this bill.
  This is a question of redefining the family. It is not a question of 
playing games with which pocket the money came out of. We still have 
the constitutional authority and duty over all legislative enactments 
in the District of Columbia--article I, section 8, clause 17, of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  If domestic partners goes into effect, Mr. Chairman, in the District 
of Columbia because my colleagues vote for the Dixon amendment, then it 
is their responsibility, and they must bear it, they must account for 
it to all the people back home in their own districts. My colleagues, 
do not think that you can escape the responsibility of the U.S. 
Constitution by saying, ``Oh, I turned it over to the District of 
Columbia. Don't we all trust the government of the District of 
Columbia?'' So I ask that the Dixon amendment be defeated and the 
Barton amendment be adopted.

                              {time}  1600

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise Members controlling debate that 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] has 7 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, there are two issues here, and two issues 
only: One is the home rule issue. I am not going to speak too long 
about that. That issue is obvious. The voters, represented through the 
city council and the Mayor of the District of Columbia voted to allow 
domestic partners at their own expense who work for the District 
government to extend health coverage by paying extra premiums to the 
people they live with, and we are going to overrule the District 
government and say ``No, you can't,'' a violation of home rule, no 
moral reason on earth, no reason we should violate the home rule.
  The second issue is the core issue. Why are we doing this anyway? And 
I do not believe for a minute a word said by the last two speakers, the 
proponents of this. Does anybody here believe, does anybody listening 
believe, that if the D.C. law were couched differently, that if instead 
of defining the word ``family'' to include domestic partner, they had a 
separate section of the law that defined the word domestic partner, 
made no reference to family, and said the benefits of domestic partners 
follows, you can have medical benefits, pension benefits, if they 
wanted to do that, does anybody believe the same people from this House 
would not be on their feet trying to overrule that? That they would not 
say that somehow magically impaired or threatened the family?
  I do not believe it for a minute. I think it is sheer hypocrisy. 
Maybe we will get the D.C. government to test that next year by writing 
their law a little differently.
  I believe the real issue here is that there are people in this 
country and in this House who so disapprove of the way some people live 
their private lives, that they want to make us moral arbiters and say 
those people are wrong, they are terrible. We will not let them live 
their private lives the way they will without exacting a pound of flesh 
because we feel good about it. That is what this debate is about, and 
nothing else, and it is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that the Barton amendment be defeated and the 
perfecting amendment be passed.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the so-called perfecting 
amendment because it would destroy the intent of what we are trying to 
do here. Money is fungible, as my colleagues already know.
  I am going to try and clarify the core issue here, which is why some 
of us have come to the well of the floor to defend the traditional 
family unit. I know we will be talking past one another. I am willing 
to take out an hour special order tonight to debate this. I am willing 
to submit it to our leaders as a topic for one of our Wednesday night 
Oxford-style debates. I could quote the Old Testament here for about 30 
minutes, but I would not want to feed Victor ``The Gentle'' Fazio's 
paranoia regarding us fire-breathing Christians. So I will just discuss 
this topic from a sociological basis.
  No jurisdictional unit in these here United States, from Alaska to 
the territory of Puerto Rico from Guam through California to 
Kennebunkport, no town, city, county, or State, recognizes same-sex 
couples as married. Protections favoring marriage are built into the 
law and our culture because of the central importance of the family 
unit as the building block of civilization. To have a governmental unit 
in this case the District of Columbia, sanction same-sex partnerships 
by putting them on par with traditional marriages in terms of benefits, 
sends a message that traditional married couples are not the ideal. Our 
society, especially as it is steeped in illegitimacy and divorce, needs 
to unashamedly promote traditional marriage. Traditional marriage is 
better than same-sex partnerships and our institutions should say so. 
Anything less is an attack on the family.
  My gosh, where did I first hear that about the family being the 
building block of civilization? It so sticks in my mind that I place it 
as September 1946. on the corner of Venice Boulevard and Normandy, at 
Loyola High School Father kelly, the professor of my first big class in 
sociology as a 13 year old, said ``the family is the building block of 
society.''
  The U.S. Supreme Court in 1888, you New Englanders will remember that 
as the year of the big blizzard, described marriage as, ``Creating the 
most important relation in life; as having more to do with the morals 
and civilization of a people than any other institution.'' That is the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  However, some jurisdictions are moving toward redefining the family 
to include same-sex relationships, and they are less like the V-8 juice 
as my colleague from Massachusetts stated, and more like Heinz 57. You 
know, you got your bondage, and you got your discipline, and you got 
your sadism, and you got your masochism, and you got your menage a 
trois, and you got your bisexuality.
  And if you had military experience you would understand there are 
visiting officers quarters, that is a VOQ. Then there is a BOQ. That is 
the bachelors officers quarters. And then there is family housing. And 
that is for enlisted men who are married and officers who are married. 
We don't want bachelors partying in the family quarters or occupying 
those quarters. They are to go to the BOQ, or get housing in the 
community in town.
  Now, a note in the Harvard Law Review in 1991--am I out of time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DORNAN. Then I will submit all this for the Record and look 
forward, Mr. Chairman, to the Oxford debate on the family. Thank you, 
Father Kelley, in sociology 101.

       Thomas Stoddard, leader of the drive to lift the military's 
     ban on homosexuals and former president of the Lambda Legal 
     Defense Fund, now known as the Lambda Legal Defense and 
     Education Fund, a homosexual legal foundation, sees marriage 
     as the prime vehicle to advance societal acceptance of 
     homosexuality:
       ``I must confess at the outset that I am no fan of the 
     `institution' of marriage as currently constructed and 
     practiced. * * * Why give it such prominence? Why devote 
     resources to such a distant goal? Because marriage is, I 
     believe, the political issue that most fully tests the 
     dedication of people who are not gay to full equality for gay 
     people, and also the issue most likely to lead ultimately to 
     a world free from discrimination against lesbians and gay 
     men. Marriage is much more than a relationship sanctioned by 
     law. It is the centerpiece of our entire social structure, 
     the core of the traditional notion of `family.'''
       Lesbian activist Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of 
     the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and now policy 
     director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, supports 
     the ``right'' of homosexuals to marry, but opposes marriage 
     as oppressive in and of itself. She says homosexual marriage 
     does not go far enough to transform society:
       ``Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with 
     a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for 
     doing so. * * * Being queer means pushing the parameters of 
     sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming 
     the very fabric of society. * * * As a lesbian, I am 
     fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. * * * In 
     arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men 
     would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual 
     couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to 
     structure our lives similarly. * * * We must keep our eyes on 
     the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of 
     radically reordering society's views of reality.''


              marriage, domestic partnerships and the law

       No jurisdictional unit in the United States--town, city, 
     county or state--recognizes same-sex couples as ``married.'' 
     Protections favoring marriage are built into the law and the 
     culture because of the central importance of the family unit 
     as the building block of civilization. In 1888, the U.S. 
     Supreme Court described marriage ``as creating the most 
     important relation in life, as having more to do with the 
     morals and civilization of a people than any other 
     institution.''
       However, some jurisdictions are moving toward redefining 
     the family to include same-sex relationships, and there is a 
     movement within the legal community to overhaul the 
     definitions of marriage and family. A note in the Harvard Law 
     Review in 1991 advocated replacing the formal definition of 
     family with an elastic standard based ``mainly on 
     the strength or duration of emotional bonds,'' regardless 
     of sexual orientation. The note recommends redefining the 
     family through ``domestic partner'' or family 
     ``registration'' statutes that go beyond the limited 
     benefits now conferred by existing domestic partnership 
     laws so as to ``achieve parity'' between marriage and 
     other relationships.
       In 1990, San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos appointed lesbian 
     activist Roberta Achtenberg (currently Assistant Secretary of 
     the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) to 
     chair the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy. The final 
     report of the task force defines the family this way:
       ``A unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related 
     together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/
     or by ties of marriage, birth, and adoption, whose central 
     purpose is to create, maintain, and promote the social, 
     mental, physical and emotional development and well being of 
     each of its members.''
       In this definition, which could reasonably be described as 
     a formulation by homosexual activists, marriage is no longer 
     the foundation for families but secondary to ``strong social 
     and emotional bonds.'' This definition is so vague that 
     multiple-partner unions are not excluded, nor any imaginable 
     combination of persons, including a fishing boat crew. The 
     whole point is to demote marriage to a level with all other 
     conceivable relationships.
       The Task Force's definition of ``domestic partners'' is 
     almost as vague, but limits the relationship to two partners: 
     ``Two people who have chosen to share all aspects of each 
     other's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of 
     mutual caring and love.''
       The District of Columbia City Council legislation defines 
     ``domestic partner'' as ``a person with whom an individual 
     maintains a committed relationship,'' which is defined as ``a 
     familial relationship between two individuals characterized 
     by mutual caring and the sharing of a mutual resident.'' One 
     of the partners must be a city employee ``at least 18 years 
     old and is competent to contract;'' ``not be related by blood 
     closer than would prohibit marriage in the District;'' ``be 
     the sole domestic partner of the older person;'' and ``not be 
     married.''
       Applicants would qualify by signing a ``declaration of 
     domestic partnership'' to be filed with the mayor, and which 
     could be terminated by filing a termination statement with 
     the mayor, which takes effect six months after filing. After 
     that, another partner could be registered. Benefits include 
     granting of sick leave, health insurance and funeral leave.

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to my utter disappointment, 
the preceding speaker failed to get my point. The question is not 
whether the family is an important thing and a good thing. My question 
remains unanswered: How does the fact that two men or two women choose 
voluntarily on their own to live together and to take advantage of the 
much lower level of benefits or other level of benefit that is there, 
how does that undermine the family? What is it about the example of two 
women living together that so frightens some of my colleagues on the 
other side that they think this will dissolve the bonds that bring men 
and women together?
  That is the question. Not whether or not the family is important, but 
how does allowing a small minority of people to live in a different way 
undermine the right and the ability of the majority to do what it 
wants? That is the core issue, and it has not been answered, because it 
cannot be answered.
  I will have to say, finally, that I would have to decline the 
invitation to engage in an Oxford debate with the gentleman from 
California. That seems to be somewhat oxymoronic.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, who has the right 
to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The right to close is reserved by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon], who has 4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton] has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply state in closing that the domestic 
partnership ordinance that is currently on the books of the District of 
Columbia says any two adults that are at least 18 years of age or 
older, they can be heterosexual couples, they can be homosexual 
couples, as long as they are not married and want health benefits, they 
can register with the District of Columbia as a domestic partnership 
and receive those benefits, and any other benefits.
  Admittedly, if we pass the Barton amendment, we will not allow 
homosexual couples to receive any health care benefits if they 
registered themselves as a domestic partner. But neither would we allow 
heterosexual unmarried couples to receive those benefits either.
  Once again, I must reiterate that the definition of family in the 
ordinance that is on the books in the District of Columbia does not 
meet any currently acceptable legal definition of family or of marriage 
anywhere else in the country.
  I would hope that we would defeat the amendment of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon], which is a shell game, so that they could 
substitute Federal funds in another area so they could use local funds 
to implement this act. Defeat the Dixon amendment, and then vote for 
the Barton amendment, as we have the last 2 years.

                              {time}  1610

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, to close the debate, I yield the balance of 
my time to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, after a tough day 
for the District.
  I say to my colleagues, leave us with our laws. How much do they mean 
to extract today from the District of Columbia? Have not you gotten 
enough?
  The Dixon amendment has with it the power of precedent. The fact is 
that the Members of this body have used the distinction between Federal 
and local funds to separate themselves from the District of Columbia. 
That is the precedent for the way we have most often approached these 
issues.
  I ask my colleagues to follow that precedent and to do so once again. 
I do not believe that the domestic partnership part of this is relevant 
to the way we have chosen to look at these issues in the past. Dozens 
of jurisdictions have domestic partnership laws, and some of my 
colleagues come from districts that have them. All that I ask of 
Members is that they show respect for my constituents and their 
democratically chosen choices.
  My friends, this is a great country. Vive la difference. In the 
District, we have little enough democracy. We have less than any of the 
rest of my colleagues.
  Today, through a bipartisan amendment, have inflicted heavy fiscal 
pain in order for the District to get its appropriation through; 80 
percent of the money in this appropriation, my friends, on the other 
side of the aisle, is the District's money. Therefore, local funds 
means local funds.
  Leave us with our laws. Do unto my constituents, I ask my colleagues, 
as they would have others do unto theirs.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Barton amendment. The citizens 
of the District of Columbia have once again decided that unmarried 
citizens of their jurisdiction should not be denied healthcare 
coverage. As a proponent of universal healthcare coverage and as a 
longstanding supporter of home rule, I must oppose any effort to deny 
the District the authority to expand healthcare coverage for its 
citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to rise. It is neither our 
right nor our responsibility to intrude on local matters.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the protections favoring marriage 
are built into the law and the culture because of the central 
importance of the family unit as the building block of civilization. It 
is no accident that this has taken place.
  By the same token, it is no accident that the District of Columbia's 
domestic partners act has decided to include homosexual couples, 
heterosexual couples living together, or any roommates. This definition 
reducing the institution of marriage to a level with all other 
conceivable relationships is a deliberate attempt.
  People need to resist this assault against the family and the bond 
that was designed to hold it together--the institution of marriage. 
Taxpayers are tired of picking up the tab for special interests, 
especially ones that they are morally opposed to.
  Furthermore, the domestic partnership provision mocks the idea of 
commitment--commitment in any relationship, since most domestic partner 
laws allow for easy dissolution of the relationship and the registry of 
several partners a year.
  In September, Austin became the first city in my State of Texas to 
adopt the domestic partners policy, which is similar to ones passed in 
about 25 cities nationwide.
  Since Austin City Council enactment and approval of the insurance 
program in September, 98 employees had signed up with 69 registering an 
opposite sex partner and 29 enrolling a same-sex partner.
  In May, Austin voters repealed the domestic partner policy that 
extended health insurance benefits to unmarried partners of city 
employees by a clear mandate of 62 percent.
  This mandate expresses Austin residents' frustrations with the 
maneuvering of the city council.
  One of the many reasons this program was overwhelmingly repealed was 
because this program erodes family values.
  People also felt very strongly that the city of Austin had no right 
to redefine marriage.
  Many voters also opposed the program simply because of the added 
expense it would cost the city and ultimately the taxpayer to provide 
these benefits. According to city estimates these benefits would have 
cost the city of Austin approximately $130,000 this year alone.
  D.C. should learn from the lesson Austin offers and not make the same 
mistake its presumptuous council did last September. We should vote 
against the motion to rise and for the Barton amendment to continue the 
ban on domestic partnership through fiscal year 95.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton].
  The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 251, 
noes 176, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 321]

                               AYES--251

     Allard
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thornton
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--176

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klein
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rohrabacher
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bacchus (FL)
     Bishop
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Huffington
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     McDade
     Obey
     Rowland
     Slattery

                              {time}  1633

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. DeLUGO and Mr. RUSH changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. STUPAK changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Sharp) having assumed the chair, Mr. Mfume, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4649) 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, 1995, and for other 
purposes, had directed him to report the bill back to the House with 
sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be 
agreed to, and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 210, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 322]

                               AYES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Coyne
     Darden
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sharp
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Washington
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--210

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Brewster
     Browder
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bishop
     Gallo
     Huffington
     Kennedy
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     McDade
     Obey
     Rowland
     Serrano
     Slattery

                              {time}  1654

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Serrano for, with Mr. Rowland against.

  Mr. VOLKMER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WISE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________