[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 96 (Thursday, July 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 4649, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A 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.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, over 200 years ago, the United 
States fought its revolution because the colonists of that era wanted 
the chance to govern themselves. This bill, however, in its attempts to 
dictate to the people and the government of the District of Columbia, 
seems to say that King George was right, and our revolution was wrong.
  This legislation, it seems to me, is wrongheaded on three counts. 
First, it cuts the Federal payment in lieu of taxes to the District by 
$20 million. Given the tough budget climate the Federal Government is 
facing, I can understand not increasing that payment, but a cut is 
another matter altogether. After all, the District is facing its own 
budget crisis, and while major spending cuts are no doubt needed to 
address that crisis, the District is not acting to make its situation 
even worse by giving any of its taxpayers at tax cut. Yet that is what 
the Senate is, in effect, doing. It is creating a tax cut for itself, 
one that the District has no saying.
  This appropriations bill does not stop there, however. It also orders 
$75 million in spending cuts by the District. If the Capitol was 
located in Illinois or California, or in a State with a relatively 
small population, like Wyoming or New Hampshire, the kinds of 
provisions that are in this bill would never have gotten out of the 
committee. They certainly would not be before the Senate now. And there 
is no way provisions like these would have passed the House.
  But they did pass the House, and the reason they did is because the 
District is not a State, it does not have a vote in either the Senate 
or the House, and so Congress feels free to micromanage the District's 
budget.
  I think that is wrong, Madam President. I think that it is 
inconsistent with our democracy, and that it must be fixed. The only 
permanent fix is D.C. statehood, and I strongly support that 
initiative. Until that happens, however, it seems to me that the least 
the Congress should do is to permit D.C. residents to exercise the 
limited power that the home rule statute gives them--but this bill does 
not meet even that limited statute.
  Instead, it goes deep into entirely local D.C. affairs to dictate to 
the District of Columbia that its law school be closed. Now, I do not 
pretend to know whether D.C. should be funding a law school or not, and 
I am aware of the accreditation issue. These issues are not Federal 
issues, however. They are entirely local issues, and they should be 
decided locally--by the residents of the District of Columbia.
  Residents of the District are permitted to vote for President, which 
means they have at least a limited voice in the largest issues of war 
and peace that our country faces. Yet, this bill suggests, implies, and 
virtually outright states that District residents are not competent to 
decide local issues that they have to live with every day--that 
instead, Congress should decide those issues for them.
  No Member of this body, or of the House, could go back to her or his 
State or district, and tell her or his constituents that Congress 
should decide State and local issues for them. No Member of this body, 
or of the House, could get away with telling their constituents that 
their Governors, their State legislators, their mayors, and their other 
elected officials are not capable of making decisions on State or local 
issues, and that the Congress should decide those issues for them. Yet 
that is exactly what is going on here today, and the only reason it is 
happening is that the District does not have any representation.
  Madam President, I support solid congressional oversight of the 
District, just as I support congressional oversight of any local where 
Federal money is being spent. Oversight and antidemocratic 
micromanagement are two entirely different things, however, a fact that 
this bill seems to miss.
  What is needed is a bill that honors home rule. What is need is a 
bill that respects the District, as every State in this Union is 
respected. Unfortunately, this is not that kind of bill. I, therefore, 
cannot support it, and I strongly urge mu colleagues to join me in 
opposing H.R. 4649.


                                  vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, H.R. 4649 
pass, as amended?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 217 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mack
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--32

     Baucus
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeConcini
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kempthorne
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Wallop
  So the bill (H.R. 4649), as amended, was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists 
on its amendments, and requests a conference with the House of 
Representatives on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 
4649, and the Chair is authorized to appoint the conferees on the part 
of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold) appointed Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, 
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Burns, Mr. Mack, and Mr. Hatfield 
conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________