[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1064-H1077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2546, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 1996
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 351
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 2546) 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, 1996, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 351 provides for consideration of the
conference report for H.R. 2546, the District of Columbia
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996, and waives all points of
order against this bill. This rule provides for the orderly
consideration of this conference agreement and will facilitate its
consideration. Normal procedures of the House allow for 1 hour of
general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Finally, House rules provide for a motion to recommit with or without
instructions as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, the appropriations process is clearly more difficult
when you attempt to pass fiscally responsible legislation. The District
of Columbia appropriations conference report will not satisfy everyone
and does not cut as much spending as many of us would have liked, but I
am hopeful that the President will sign this commonsense bill which
will move us closer to restoring the District's fiscal health.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will stem the fiscal crisis that the
District has created. The gentlelady from the District of Columbia has
stated that we all have a duty to help raise our Nation's capital out
of its fiscal crisis, and I believe that this bill fulfills that
obligation. The District must now restore fiscal sanity and create a
more efficient and productive Capital City for its residents and all
Americans.
The conference report provides a total appropriation of $4.99 billion
for fiscal year 1996. In addition, the conferees have included a number
of legislative provisions that will ensure that a few specified
activities are achieved by the local government.
I am particularly pleased that the bill includes reforms that are
imperative to the revival of the D.C. school system. The conference
agreed to include low-income scholarships of up to $3,000 that
qualified students could use to attend private schools in the District.
The conference also designates $15 million dollars in order to repair
deteriorating schools and produce an acceptable environment for our
children's education. Representative Gunderson deserves high praise for
his persistent efforts to reform the District's school system.
Mr. Speaker, given the size and population of the District, it is
difficult to argue that a bill that provides this city with about $5
billion dollars is not generous. For those who still believe this bill
is unfair, consider this: the Federal per capita spending equals about
$9,000. I would argue that no other city in America receives so much
Federal funding and has so many mismanaged and inefficient services to
show for it.
Nonetheless, the District shamelessly comes to us with yet another
exorbitant wish list for funding. The House has been very charitable in
preserving home rule, but we have a constitutional duty to keep the
District's budget in balance. To fulfill this obligation, Congress will
appropriate funds for the District and set the fiscal and policy
parameters. The Financial Authority will then provide guidance for a
sound financial operation. We are giving the District a golden
opportunity with this bill to prove that it can control spending in a
disciplined and competent manner. It is a fiscally responsible solution
that is more than generous and the District cannot expect any better.
I certainly hope that the District will be held accountable for the
expenditure of this funding by the District Financial Management
Assistance Authority which has been tasked to quickly implement
commonsense money management. We are all aware of the apprehension that
remains about the District's ability to govern itself competently, and
I hope that we can agree that this bill is a proper vehicle to drive
the District into an era of financial stability.
This is a city that has been wasting other people's money for an
awfully long time and has wanted unconditional freedom in doing it. The
city has reached a point where it cannot pay its bills, protect its
streets, or even plow its streets, for that matter. While the bill may
not go as far as many would like, the House needs to pass an
appropriations bill to keep the District going.
The conferees, under the leadership of Chairman Jim Walsh, have
worked well to balance an assortment of concerns, including home rule,
and made
[[Page H1065]]
difficult choices with the limited funding available this year. As is
the case with the other appropriations bills, the product of their work
reflects the Nation's new budget realities. While we currently do not
have a Balanced Budget Act with tax relief and entitlement reform, we
will continue to move toward our goal as a Nation to spend within our
means.
This fiscal emergency requires drastic action, and the conference
report is designed to insure, once and for all, that the available
funding is spent efficiently and where it is needed most.
Mr. Speaker, this rule was favorably reported by the Rules Committee.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may complete our
work on the District's 1996 funding and start the process of restoring
the District's financial health.
{time} 1820
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and
to this conference report. I oppose this rule because the text of this
conference report has only a few minutes ago been made available to the
Members of this body. I do not think it would be too much to ask to
allow interested Members the opportunity to fully study the conference
report, especially if it still contains far-reaching language relating
to the creation of a multimillon-dollar school-voucher program in the
District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, we are scheduled to be here tomorrow, so why not take up
this bill at that time? Is our schedule so full tomorrow that we cannot
fit an hour's debate on this conference report into the floor schedule
for Thursday? It seems that if we are going to consider this conference
report at all before the month of March, we must do it today since the
Republican leadership is so bent on taking a 3-week vacation starting
tomorrow afternoon. Mr. Speaker, this procedure is not fair to the
residents of the District of Columbia and it is not a responsible way
to legislate.
But, in addition to my opposition to considering this conference
report before the Members have had an opportunity to study its
contents, I am opposed to the conference report itself. If the
information that is available to me is correct, this report still
contains language which creates a school voucher program. I have been
and I remain opposed to the use of Federal funds for school vouchers.
While the conferees have attempted to cloak the creation of a voucher
program in the District of Columbia in a veil of respectability, the
fact is that these provisions would ultimately allow the use of Federal
funds to pay tuition at private schools. Mr. Speaker, that is a
provision I cannot support and for that reason I will oppose this
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, this appropriation is not a place to practice the social
engineering of the Republican right. Instead, what this appropriation
is for is to provide the District with critically needed funds that
will allow the city to serve its citizens. It is time that the
Republican majority stop trying to impose its social agenda on this
city and to act in the best interests of its residents. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose this conference report.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, on January 25, 1996, during the debate on
House Resolution 342, Representative Hoyer asked me, in reference to
``martial-law'' rules, whether or not this kind of rule has ever been
proposed prior to June 30 of any legislative year in the history of the
Congress. My response was, no, it has never been proposed before June
30. Martial-law rules are multipurpose rules clearing the way for the
House to act quickly on a broad range of legislative measures by
stating that certain of the standing rules will not apply for a
specified period of time, usually the few remaining days at the end of
a session. If this were the end of the session, House Resolution 342
would be a typical example of a martial-law rule.
At one point late in the debate, Representative McInnis, who managed
the rule for the majority, recited a list of rules that waived clause
4(b) of rule XI--requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the
same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules--and that were
reported prior to June 30 by the Rules Committee during the 103d
Congress. He made the statement that these rules were all reported
before June 30 of each session of the Congress and were no different
from House Resolution 342. He is correct in his statement only with
regard to the fact that these rules were reported before June 30 in
each session and that each contained a two-thirds waiver but that is
where the similarities end. There are indeed major differences between
the resolutions he cited and House Resolution 342.
I believe my friend, the gentleman from Colorado, can clearly see the
differences between the rules on his list and House Resolution 342.
Those on his list are single purpose rules waiving the two-thirds
requirement for same-day consideration for one specifically identified
measure and the waiver usually lasted 1 day and never more than 2 days.
Representative Hoyer was referring to martial-law rules when he spoke
of House Resolution 342 as ``a rule which allows for 1 day of
consideration of matters.'' The word ``matters'' is plural. The 103d
Congress never waived the two-thirds rule against a rule that covered
multiple bills before June 30 in either year. House consideration of
this rule is indeed setting history or a new precedent because it has
never been done before. Having reviewed the Rules Committee surveys of
activities from the 98th Congress through the 103d, I can say with
assurance, the House has not once considered a martial-law rule this
early in the session. I also made clear in my response to the gentleman
from Colorado that we were referring to multiple bill waivers--martial-
law rules--and not single purpose rules like those he recited.
The following summary and accompanying chart will clarify and shed
further light on the distinct and important differences between those
single-purpose rules and House Resolution 342.
First, House Resolution 342 provides for consideration of an
unlimited number of separate and distinct bills or resolutions within
three subject categories. The rules, recited by Mr. McInnis, were all
single issue resolutions providing in each instance for only one
specific bill or resolution. The authority granted by each of the rules
could be used only one time and not over and over as is the case with
House Resolution 342.
Second, the duration of the authority provided in each of these rules
was for only 1 day in six of the rules and not longer than 2 days in
the other two rules. House Resolution 342 provides authority for the
extremely long and unnecessary period of 51 days, from January 25
through March 15.
Third, of those rules that were reported before June 30 during each
of the two sessions of the 103d Congress, only four: House Resolution
61, House Resolution 142, House Resolution 395, and House Resolution
441 were considered by the House. The other four rules were either
tabled--House Resolution 111, House Resolution 150, House Resolution
153--or not used by the effective date contained in the rule--House
Resolution 356. All four rules considered by the House were effective
for 1 day only. In one of the rules, House Resolution 395, the waiver
of the two-thirds rule was combined with a general debate provision for
the bill so the House could continue its consideration of the bill the
following day.
Finally, in all four instances where the House considered and voted
on the two-thirds waiver, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
opposed the waiver and voted against the rule. Now that they are
responsible for conducting the business of the House they embrace the
idea and are willing to take it to new and historic levels. The House
has passed five martial-law rules since November 15, 1995, and will be
operating under the authority of these five rules with regard to
budgetary legislation for a period of 4 months, from November 15, 1995
until March 16, 1996. The combined result of this prolonged authority
makes the long standing House rule against same-day consideration of
rules of little effect. The purpose of the two-thirds rule is to allow
for adequate notice to Members before a bill comes to the floor. A
review of all the budgetary bills considered by the House during this
period reveals a disturbing trend. Almost all have been considered
under the martial-law authority. I only hope that this rule will be the
last instance of martial-law and that this type of rule does not become
the management tool of choice for the majority during the remainder of
the second session.
resolutions waiving clause 4(b) of rule XI reported before June 30
H.R. 61.--Family and Medical Leave Act.--reported from
Rules 2/3/93; adopted 2/4/93 (239-155); no limit on duration.
(However, H.Res. 71, the rule providing for consideration of
H.R. 1, Family and Medical Leave Act, was considered and
adopted on 2/4/93 making the effective duration only one
day.)
H.R. 111.--Emergency Unemployment Compensation--reported
from Rules 3/3/93; tabled 3/9/93; effective one day (3/4/93).
NOT USED
H.Res. 142--H.Con.Res. 64--Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget--reported from Rules
[[Page H1066]]
3/30/93; adopted 3/31/93 (248-171); effective one day (3/31/93).
H.Res. 150.--H.R. 1335--Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations--reported from Rules 4/1/93; tabled 10/27/93;
effective two days (4/2/93-4/3/93). NOT USED
H.Res. 153.--H.R. 1335--Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations--reported from Rules 4/21/93; tabled 10/27/93;
effective one day (4/22/93). NOT USED
H.Res. 356.--H.R. 3759--Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations--reported from Rules 2/9/94; pending;
effective two days (2/10/94-2/11/94). NOT USED
H.Res. 395.--H.R. 4092--Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act--reported from Rules 3/22/94; adopted 3/23/94
(240-174); effective one day (3/23/94). This rule provided
for general debate and next day consideration of a subsequent
rule for H.R. 4092.
H.Res. 441.--H.R. 4426--Foreign Operations Appropriations--
reported from Rules 5/24/94; adopted 5/25/94 (246-174);
effective one day (5/25/94).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 351, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2546) 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, 1996, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to
House Resolution 351, the conference report is considered as having
been read.
(For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the
House of today.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] each will be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
general leave
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the
conference report on the bill, H.R. 2546, and the amendment in
disagreement, and that I be permitted to include a tabulation
summarizing the conference agreement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this evening we have before the House the conference
agreement on H.R. 2546, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 1996. The bill passed the other body on September 22, and
passed this House on November 2. We had five meetings with our Senate
counterparts, including one at 10 o'clock this morning, as well as
numerous other meetings in our efforts to work out the differences
between the House and Senate versions of this bill.
In the meantime, we provided funding to the District government
through continuing resolutions under which a portion of the Federal
payment was paid to the city. Under these CR's, $441 million of the
$660 million annual Federal payment has been disbursed. These funds
were placed in the Control Board's hands with half of the money going
back to the U.S. Treasury to repay last year's loan to the District.
On January 3, I introduced a CR that allows the District to continue
operating through September 30 using its own local funds. That CR
passed the Congress and was signed by the President on January 4. Even
though this bill has been pending in conference, the District and
Control Board have had the authority as well as a substantial part of
the Federal payment to continue operations.
Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement provides the District
government with a budget of $4.994 billion--that is an enormous sum of
money for a population of 554,000--over $9,000 for every resident. For
that kind of money the District residents should be receiving the
highest quality city services in America.
The latest revenue estimates for fiscal 1996 made by the District's
new chief financial officer are now $4.848 billion, which is $150
million below our conference agreement on expenditures of $4.994
billion. Our amount is only a cap on spending, so we are expecting that
the Control Board will make the necessary reductions in expenditures to
match that revenue estimate. Had we accepted the city's budget of
$5.148 billion, we would now be looking at a $300 million deficit.
The Financial Control Board has been in place for about 7 months and
I am confident they are headed in the proper direction to bring the
District government back from the brink of financial insolvency brought
about by 20 years of home rule and 15 years of unrestrained spending. I
fully support what they are doing and look forward to the 4-year
financial plan and recommendations they will be sending to the
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, there were numerous items that we resolved early in the
conference--but some of the issues were extremely difficult.
First, on the abortion issue, the conference agreement provides that
no Federal or local funds shall be used to perform abortions except to
save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. This
language has been signed into law by the President in the continuing
resolutions that have passed this Congress over the past few months.
The Senate bill reflected current law which restricted the use of
Federal funds only.
On domestic partners, the Senate language prohibited the use of only
Federal funds to implement or enforce the District's Domestic Partners
Act. The conference agreement continues current law which prohibits the
use of both Federal and local funds.
In the past few months there has been a great deal of discussion
about local efforts to reform city operations. The school board is
considering reducing their generous salaries and even introducing some
privatization to their operations and management. The local governments
are considering making Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant a
regional authority. City departments involved with economic development
and planning are looking to consolidate and eliminate duplication.
These initiatives were set in motion by this year's appropriations bill
and our strong encouragement.
In order to bring about additional change in the District, our
committee identified 28 items of concern which were referred to the
Control Board. We have asked the Control Board to resolve those items
and report back by April 1, 1996. I believe that both the financial and
management problems of this city must be addressed in tandem. Improving
city management is a No. 1 priority. For example, we have requested
management assessment studies to improve the delivery of services
especially in the areas of trash collection, school and office
maintenance, and police, fire and ambulance maintenance, and
deployment.
What is needed is action and results now.
The District government spends over $5 billion a year for city
services. The city's per capita cost for education, safety, trash
collection, aid-to-families with dependent children, job training,
homelessness, and substance abuse appear to be the highest in the
Nation. We have asked the Control Board to seek out the best management
and operating practices of other cities and introduce them into the
District government to improve operations.
So Mr. Speaker, the most contentious issues discussed at our
conference meetings involved reforming the District of Columbia's
failing public school system. This conference agreement culminates a
year of debate, discussion, and negotiation from the local school level
to the Congress regarding the amount, shape, and pace of education
reform necessary in the District of Columbia.
One of the items I am most proud of is the low-income scholarship
program. This program will provide many of the District's most needy
children with the opportunity to receive a first-rate education. I
believe we need to begin educating tomorrow's city leaders today. The
scholarship program provides up to $3,000 that can be used by students
to attend private schools in the District
[[Page H1067]]
as well as public or private schools in the surrounding jurisdictions.
It will give these kids and their parents a choice they have never had.
This will also, in my opinion, be the catalyst that is needed to
transform the District's public schools into better educational
institutions. To meet the early objections posed by the other body to
the school reform proposals, we have provided the city council with
final approval of the program, but I am confident the city council will
support this program. In fact, the council's committee on education
unanimously supported parent choice. I quote from a letter the
council's committee sent to our colleague from Wisconsin:
The Committee embraces the creation of a federally funded
scholarship program that would assist low-income parents in
enrolling their children in * * * the school of their choice
in the District of Columbia.
So Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members including our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to pass this conference report and help the
residents of this District.
I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee for their hard
work on this bill.
I want to especially thank the full committee chairman, the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] for his extraordinary efforts on this
bill. He took time to participate in our markups and meetings while
still tending to other important appropriations matters.
Each of these members is to be commended. I also want to thank the
House and Senate staff as well as my personal staff for their hard work
and their assistance.
Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record, I will insert a tabulation
summarizing the conference action.
[[Page H1068]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TH31JA96.000
[[Page H1069]]
{time} 1845
But I am confident the city council will support it. In fact, the
council's committee on education unanimously supported parental choice
in schools, and I quote from a letter from the council's committee to
our colleague from Wisconsin, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Gunderson]: ``The committee embraces the creation of a federally funded
scholarship program that would assist low-income parents in enrolling
their children in the school of their choice in the District of
Columbia.''
So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all Members, including our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, to pass this conference report, to help
the residents of this District.
I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee for their hard
work on this bill, and I would remind my colleagues that this is going
to be very difficult, a very difficult bill to pass. There is enough in
this bill to make everybody angry. It is a compromise bill, but
overall, it is the best bill we could bring to the floor. It is a good
bill, in my estimation, and it begins the reforms that are needed in
this most important of all American cities.
There is a special relationship here between the Congress and the
city, and we need to enhance that relationship. We are spending a
little bit more money this year than we did last year, about $15
million, but it is for one purpose, to reform these schools. Most of
the money will go to the private school system, but it will also
provide for educational choice and for charter schools.
Mr. Speaker, lastly, let me commend my colleagues on the subcommittee
and my distinguished ranking member, the former chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], for working
through this very, very difficult bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I too would like to commend the chairman
of the subcommittee for doing what I consider a good job under
extraordinary circumstances, and thank the staff of the subcommittee
for their fine efforts.
Mr. Speaker, let me give the body a little bit of history here as to
what is really happening with the D.C. bill. First of all, it is no
secret that it is the smallest of the 13 appropriation bills, and when
the District got home rule there was a Federal payment that was worked
out in lieu of the District paying property taxes. This year that
amounts to $660 million.
At the same time that we provide this Federal payment, there has been
a philosophical move nationally to provide vouchers or, as some people
would describe it, to make it a purr word instead of the snarl word
scholarships, and the majority of this House have decided they would
try this out on the District of Columbia.
On the other side of the Capitol in the Senate, the Senate would not
go along with this issue, and since both Houses have passed the bill,
and for some 65 or 70 days it has been the issue of vouchers that has
held this up. Because we did not have a bill for the District, there
was a continuing resolution, and one way to put pressure on this issue
was to dribble out the Federal payment so that at some point in time
the District would have to say ``uncle.''
As a matter of fact, the last continuing resolution that passed here,
the chairman of the committee saw fit not to include any of the $250
million that is still owed the District in the Federal payment, because
you see, that puts more pressure on to get this bill out so they can
get the money and, therefore, in fact the voucher system stands a
better chance.
Now, as it relates to my participation in any of the negotiations, I
do not think anyone on the committee would disagree that I have had
none, zero. And when the chairman of the committee says that, in fact,
they have reached an agreement, what he means is that the House
majority, the Republicans, and the Senate majority under Mr. Jeffords,
that they have reached an agreement, and as a matter of fact, when we
met at 10 o'clock this morning, the agreement that was presented to us
was not in its final version until such time as we took a vote. The
chairman on the Senate side was kind enough to wait until the document
arrived in the room before we took a vote on it.
When I began to raise questions about some of the things that I had
been informed that had been agreed to last night, the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Jeffords, informed me that that part, part of that, had
been changed this morning. Now, I point that out to say that I think
the chairman of the subcommittee spoke incorrectly as he related to
describing the vouchers.
It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, of the vouchers, that the $5
million that is dedicated to the vouchers, that that voucher proposal,
and I am really asking at this point because I am not sure, that that
voucher proposal, one, would allow for vouchers to be used only in the
District of Columbia, but what I would describe as the tutorial
program, the bill is silent as to where those people would go for
tutorial services and, therefore, it is my understanding at this point
that the voucher itself cannot be used outside of the District,
contrary to what you made in your State.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It is my understanding that the priority, the priority for spending
of the vouchers is within the District, and I might add that the
priority for spending is in the District. There may be, it may be used
outside of the District, but the priority is within the District, but
the scholarship board will work with the District council to determine
how much of that is used for tutorial and remedial programs and how
much of it is used for vouchers.
Mr. DIXON. Reclaiming my time, I thoroughly understand that the
scholarship corporation would, in fact, disburse the money in a manner
it saw fit. But I think that Members that are watching can see that the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] is not clear on it. I do not
think the staff is clear on it.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
What I was trying to do was find the exact bill language that I might
read to you.
Under the conference agreement, the scholarship board shall propose
the allocation of scholarships.
Mr. DIXON. I understand that.
Mr. GUNDERSON. That shall be approved by the council, so the
scholarship board has no authority to disburse this money as they see
fit.
Mr. DIXON. I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], it
is my time. I understand all of that. I am asking the question: Can a
voucher be used outside of the District of Columbia?
Mr. GUNDERSON. It can be, but there is a priority within the
District. The reason we did not totally exclude it is because there are
going to be some kind of special needs students that are already served
outside of the District.
Mr. DIXON. Let me reclaim my time and say to the gentleman that I
certainly admire the hard work and energy that he has put into this.
Obviously the gentlewoman from the District is on the floor. That was
not her understanding of it at the beginning. But since we are on the
voucher system, let me say that probably since it allows for the
voucher outside of the District, that most of the vouchers would be
applied outside of the District.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Just briefly, there are, as I think my colleague is aware,
there are a number of children in the District with special needs, and
the District, it is necessary for the District to have these kids taken
outside of the District so that those special needs can be met. They
cannot meet them within the public school system of the District. So we
have to keep these available for those children.
Mr. DIXON. Is the gentleman saying, and I hope since we are having
this dialogue that you will be kind enough to
[[Page H1070]]
yield me some time, are you saying then, is it only the kids that have
special needs, that is, a categorical group that will take the voucher
outside the District?
Mr. WALSH. If the gentleman will yield further, as I understand it,
no.
Mr. DIXON. So my point is that with the voucher system, I dare say
that most of the vouchers would be exercised outside the District.
The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker and Members, is because according
to the information that I have obtained, there are only 51 private
schools in the District, as I indicated in the Committee on Rules. The
maximum that a person with 185 percent above the poverty level could
receive is $3,000, unless they had some other supplemental help, and I
do not know at this point where that would come from. That would mean
that there are only seven schools in the District that have tuition of
$3,000 or less. The average is from $6,000 to $12,000. Six of those
seven are religious schools.
So I would guess from that, since it allows the person to take the
voucher anywhere they want to, that because there are very few schools
in the District that have the low tuition, then most of that would be
used outside the District. But most importantly, as it relates to this
voucher system, there are some 80,000 children in the school district,
and I am not here defending the District of Columbia School System, but
I know for a fact that 50,000 students would be eligible for some form
of scholarship, and if you take half of that money and apply it to
scholarships and the other half to tutorial programs, it would work out
that 1,500 to 2,000 students would probably be helped in one form or
another if they could find a school that would take their voucher.
But what about the 97 percent of the rest of the schools? We are
putting $5,000 of Federal money in here to demonstrate what, I do not
know. Private schools, under certain circumstances, can do a good job.
Those circumstances are usually a strong parental support for a zest
for education. As a matter of fact, the State of Wisconsin has a
voucher system, and the testing has shown that those kids that have
received the voucher, that this is no substantial difference in the
testing of the ones in the public schools and the ones in private
schools under the voucher. But there is a substantial difference
between those students that voluntarily went to the school, and I would
suggest to you that it has a lot to do with the kind the family
support, the kind of transportation, the kind of environment that that
person lives in, and, yes, under certain conditions, you can do very
well.
So for this first year in putting $5 million of Federal money into it
for 1,500 to 2,000 people, in my estimation, does not prove a thing,
and so I am going to oppose this conference report this evening.
I understand that those people who want to vote for it, who feel that
the District needs the money, I understand that. It has been the level
that has been applied here for Federal payment that on its merits the
District deserves and should be provided to them without this kind of
blackmail.
There is no doubt that there is a financial crisis, and unfortunately
that works to the benefit of those who would hold this as a lever over
their head.
But I would ask Members to vote ``no'' on this conference report, for
as hard as the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson, has worked and
the good things that Mr. Jeffords feels about the Commission and the
activities of this chairman, they too, I would suggest to you, do not
have the key in the 2 or 3 months in putting together legislation that
is going to cure the deplorable conditions of this school district.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the authorizing subcommittee of the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to thank the
appropriations subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Walsh], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], the chief
minority member of the committee, for their work on this, working with
the Senate.
This has been one of the more difficult appropriation bills this
year. It has had a lot of contention in it. It is not a perfect bill as
it comes here, but it is a bill that I can stand up here and proudly
support.
It is going to give the District of Columbia the money needed. They
have been faced with shutdowns and no Federal payment, and the result
of that has been that a number of vendors who have been performing in
good faith contractual obligations to the city have been stiffed for
payments, sometimes delayed for months, because the city has not had
the money to pay them.
This will help free that up. This will help allow the city to go
ahead with its plans for its reinventing government proposals and put
them, for the rest of the fiscal year, on a fair and even basis.
{time} 1900
I congratulate the fiscal restraint that is shown in this bill by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] in writing this. I think it strikes
a delicate but essential balance between what the city's obligations
are and what they ought to be able to pay with a reasonable
appropriation.
Let me also say that the act brings some reforms that are needed to
the District of Columbia Government. We talked about some of the
restrictions in spending. You have heard the discussion center on
education.
Let me say right now the District of Columbia today is sending
literally thousands of kids out to the suburbs to private schools to be
educated. Many of these, as my colleague from New York noted, are
individuals and students with special needs. This will expand that
opportunity now to the poorest citizens in the District of Columbia,
those who are below the poverty line, who would like to have the same
kind of educational opportunities that are offered throughout the rest
of this country, the same kind of educational opportunities, if you
will, that Members of Congress and the President and the Vice President
are able to offer their kids who have the opportunity to send their
kids to the District of Columbia public schools, but decline to do so,
and in lieu of that send their kids to private schools.
The poorest of the poor, those below the poverty line, there is a
pool of money here that will allow those parents to operate for private
schools in some cases and have some seed money, up to $3,000 annually
to be able to do that. The city currently is spending over $9,000 per
year per student, yet the output in terms of the number who are
graduating, their test scores, going on to college, I think you could
deem the public school system in the city today a miserable failure.
This proposal also calls for the establishment of charter schools. I
think this is very, very important, because it will allow groups like
the Smithsonian and other groups to set up charter schools which will
offer opportunities to citizens from the District of Columbia to come
in and get other options for education to encourage them to move up. If
we really want to help this city, bring the city out of poverty, reduce
crime, education is the key to doing that. The current educational
system is not doing that.
This bill does not solve that problem, but it goes a long way toward
that goal by starting some innovation and some competition within the
public sector. I think that is essential.
I would finally add it is not a perfect bill in many ways, but this
is a good bill, and one that I am proud to support at this point. I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabor the point. The gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Davis] says this is a good bill. I honestly do not know
how he knows that, because I do not think he knows what is in it.
But I would like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee, it is my
understanding that there are two classes of scholarships in this bill.
One is called a tuition scholarship, and the other is called an
enhancement scholarship.
My question was whether you could take the tuition scholarship
outside of the District? I thought the gentleman said yes, you could,
and he used the example of children with special needs as
[[Page H1071]]
one example. Then I questioned is it only that class that could, and
the gentleman's response was no. Then I went on talking about I thought
that most of them would go outside the District then. Is that in
essence it?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I strongly would disagree with that. As I
understand the way the bill is written, there is priority for use of
all these funds within the District of Columbia first. If all of the
spaces available are taken up within the District of Columbia, after
that is accomplished, then the money would be available outside.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, calling attention to page
160 of the bill on line 10, which indicates tuition scholarships, a
tuition scholarship may be used only for payment of the cost of tuition
and mandatory fees and transportation to attend an eligible
institution, emphasis added, located within the geographic boundaries
of the District of Columbia.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, what we tried to point out earlier is
that the scholarships generally do both have a priority for District of
Columbia. There are two kinds of scholarships, a tuition scholarship
and an enhancement scholarship.
Mr. DIXON. I said that a moment ago.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
the tuition scholarships, as the gentleman read, can only go within the
boundaries of the District of Columbia under the conference agreement.
The other scholarships can go anywhere. But those are public school
scholarships.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that was just my point. I
asked the chairman of the subcommittee whether one could take the
tuition scholarships and send that scholarship outside the District. He
said yes, and he gave the illustration of one of the examples, a kid
with special needs. I asked him was that the only example, and he said
no.
My only point is that there is a great deal of confusion as to what
is in this bill. Contrary to what everyone is talking about that it is
a good bill and it has all this in it, I do not think anybody really
knows, including the chairman, who I think his statement was wrong.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, there
was a good deal of effort in the drawing up of this bill to make sure
that the District had some local control. There is leeway within the
legislation for the District and the Scholarship Board.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is not leeway. This
is very clearly that you cannot take, which is good, the voucher out of
the District when you are dealing with what you call a tuition
scholarship. The tutorial thing, after school, you can take it any
place. But if you are to get a voucher to go to school, you can only
use it in the District. I think that is good. But it has been misstated
here on the floor, plus the people who drafted the bill, they do not
know what is in it. That is my only point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Obey the distinguished minority member of the committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me simply say I have heard
many a time Members take the floor of this House and object to the fact
that the District of Columbia Government often did not seem to know
what it was doing. At times I certainly have shared that perception. I
know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But with all due
respect, I think certainly on something which is such a major departure
from existing law, the Congress ought to know what it is doing. Very
frankly, on this issue, it does not.
I walked into the meeting of the conference this morning. We voted on
this package. But up until the moment that we voted, I had not seen a
single page of the legislative language, and neither had the gentleman
from California. I think that is a quaint way to do business.
I have several objections to this bill. First of all, I am going to
vote no because I do not believe that we should be adopting 168 pages
of new language without at least having had the opportunity to analyze
it, and we certainly did not.
Second, this bill is going to be used as a national precedent. And as
soon as this bill is passed we are then going to see organizations with
an ideological agenda who will begin to pressure each and every school
district in the country to follow the same model. With all due respect,
I think if we are going to create that kind of a precedent, at least
again we ought to know what it is we are doing. I doubt that many
Members do tonight.
Third, this Congress has already cut well over $6 million in Federal
funds for the District of Columbia school system in the Labor-HEW bill.
Yet, despite the fact we are squeezing down that money, we are asking
that $5 million from a reduced budget level be set aside for this new
experiment. As the gentleman from California has already indicated,
even though there are about 50,000 youngsters who will be eligible for
this experiment, less than 2,000 will probably be able to participate.
I think the precedent which is going to be set and the pressures
which will then be brought upon State legislatures and Members of
Congress to apply this all over the country, I think is a very high
price to pay based on the kind of tokenism which this provision
provides.
So while I have a great deal of respect for many of the people
involved, and I have full confidence they are trying to do the right
thing, I would simply suggest that this is a very high price for each
of our school districts to pay to begin this tiny experiment here in
the District of Columbia, and certainly the process which has been
followed in bringing this product to the floor tonight does a
disservice to each and every Member in this House and to the public we
are supposed to represent.
Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the
proposition when we get to the vote.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to some of
the other comments made earlier.
Mr. Speaker, we have worked on this bill now since almost a year ago
this time. We had at least a dozen hearings. We had four or five
meetings on the conference itself. The gentleman from California says
he was not included in any of the discussion. That is not entirely
true. He made some suggestions in other aspects of the bill that were
heard and in fact actually compromised in honor.
But the issue of education here, what in God's name are you afraid
of? The kids in this school system are being abused. We are trying to
create some options for parents who do not have them now. Rich people
can afford to go to private schools. Middle-class people who save their
money can have that choice, too. Poor people do not have that choice.
This is about providing kids a hand up and a handout and an opportunity
to become leaders in this community, a community sorely in need of
leaders.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Gunderson].
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Walsh] and his staff for their cooperation, and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], and his staff, and the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], for their
patience.
Let me begin by saying the confusion you heard about the tuition
versus the enhanced educational scholarships is my fault. To Mr.
Walsh's credit, he looked at me for assurance, and I miscommunicated
with him. I want everybody to understand, blame me for that.
Having said that, I want to also make it clear that Mr. Walsh, for
the first time in this debate, just mentioned the words ``school
children.'' Somehow in this whole debate we have lost sight of the very
purpose we are here for, which is to try to help the children of the
District of Columbia.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUNDERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
[[Page H1072]]
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I indicated to the
gentleman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman and his
activities in this area. I just think the gentleman is off on the wrong
foot.
More importantly, I mentioned the school kids very clearly. I said
there were 80,000, 50,000 of whom would be eligible, but only about
1,500 to 2,000 could be funded. Do not characterize the debate as no
one talking about the kids.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say the
gentleman mentioned the word ``children'' and would also say the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] is the only one that said let us
talk about what is good for the children of District of Columbia rather
than what is good for the bureaucracy or the teacher's union or
somebody else.
{time} 1915
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], my colleague and friend,
suggested that what we are going to establish here today is a national
precedent. Know what? I hope he is right. I hope he is right, because I
would suggest this is the first time in America where we have sat down
and, first and foremost, at the request of the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] we have gone to the community and
listened to those people and asked them what they thought we ought to
do. Based upon their suggestions, literally hundreds if not thousands
of them, we put together what I would like to believe is the most
comprehensive education reform initiative that Congress has ever
considered.
First and foremost, it is the first time that I know of where we have
designed a system, a delivery system recognizing we do not have the
public resources. We do not have them in this Congress, and they do not
have them in the District of Columbia to pay for everything that needs
to be done to help these children. So we have designed a system that
gets the private sector to come in and provide additional money,
additional scholarship money, additional foundation money, additional
help to fix the school buildings, additional help to provide the
technology.
The fact is, under this education reform initiative, what my
colleagues are going to vote for tonight is a proposal that provides
$96 million in new Federal funds for the D.C. school system at a time
in which we are balancing the budget. It also is going to result in a
foundation matching that $96 million over 5 years with 96 million
additional dollars. We project that the private sector will provide $36
million in new technology assistance grants to provide the computers
and the technology equipment these students from these schools need to
learn.
Then we project that there will be $100 million in bona fide
donations to the District of Columbia schools repairing those
facilities and making them workable and learnable again. Add all of
that up, and what do we have? We have 328 million new dollars for D.C.
children over the next 5 years.
Know what? At a maximum, if the D.C. Council approves it, up to 10
percent of that money could end up in private schools. Not a penny
could be used for religious instruction.
So tonight, the Republicans are bringing those who support increased
funds for public schools, increased resources for public schools, we
are bringing a proposal that not only does real comprehensive reform,
but it does so through the public schools of D.C. for the children of
D.C. I encourage its support and its approval.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from California [Mr. Dixon] has 11 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Walsh] has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the fifth month of the fiscal
year, the appropriation of the District has finally come to the floor.
This is the first time in more than 200 years that the D.C.
appropriation has been so late. The subcommittee was prepared to move
much sooner, but a disagreement on vouchers has held the bill up until
now. Because of the District's dire financial condition, I hope all
will agree that we must do whatever is necessary to avoid similar delay
in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I want to work even more closely with the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Walsh], chairman, and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Dixon], ranking member, on next year's appropriations to try to help
prevent any similar delay.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for the extra
hours of work this bill has required of them. I thank the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Walsh], the chairman, and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dixon], the ranking member, who had the major
responsibility for the hard work that has been done on this bill.
Very special thanks are due to Senator Jeffords, who worked hard for
a compromise and is himself a volunteer in the D.C. public schools. The
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], who is the author of the
entire education reform package attached to this bill, of which
vouchers is only a tiny part, deserves to be congratulated for
exceptional service beyond the call of duty. The gentleman could not
have spent more time or effort on the education package if his next
election depended on it. Unfortunately, the gentleman from Wisconsin
has decided to retire, taking with him his special talent and
effectiveness for making real changes in a collegial fashion, the only
way to assure that change sticks.
The original package of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]
was the result of countless hours of work with D.C. residents and
officials. The gentleman's tough package of reforms and benefits
demonstrates that real changes can indeed be produced on a home rule
basis. The voucher provision that has held this bill up for 4 months
was not in the original package designed in cooperation with District
residents.
Mr. Speaker, this bill puts me in an awkward position because I do
not support many of its provisions. At the same time, it is impossible
for me to oppose the appropriation bill for my own city 4 months into
the appropriation year, after consultation with the mayor.
I should note first that among the improvements in the bill are the
domestic partners restriction and the abortion restriction. I do not
support these provisions, but each has been improved over prior
provisions that actually changed DC law.
The abortion provision was especially onerous. Its restrictions were
worse than were placed on other jurisdictions. I appreciate that,
however unacceptable, these two provisions are at least no worse than
the strictures under which the District has historically suffered.
Like me, the mayor does not support the voucher provision that has
been the subject of most of the contention. If I am in an awkward
position, he of course is in an impossible position. Only 2-weeks ago,
the District's financial position left residents, businesses and the
Federal Government itself snowed in when the District could not get
vendors in the midst of a blizzard.
The Congress shut down the District for a full week in November.
During 4 months without an appropriation, the District's financial
position has deteriorated.
The negotiations between the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson,
and Senator Jeffords have improved the bill and left open the
possibility that no tuition vouchers will occur.
If the scholarship board and the council cannot agree, no voucher
program can go forward. This provision, vesting authority with local
authorities, is cited by Mayor Barry in indicating his support for
passage, if not for the specific provisions of this bill.
I am doubtful that the voucher program will go into effect at all. A
court suit challenging the constitutionality of the voucher proposal is
inevitable. For the first time in more than 200 years that we have been
a nation, this bill would allow direct tuition payments to religious
schools. The provision allowing for the vouchers to be vetoed at the
city council does not cure
[[Page H1073]]
the problem. For a court, the issue would be, is the voucher proposal
allowing for the funding of religious schools unconstitutional on its
face? I believe that it is.
Ironically, the voucher provision respects home rule with one hand
and disrespects it with the other. The DC council has to approve the
plan. Indeed, the council could approve programs, such as afterschool
programs in private schools that are in keeping with existing law and
practices, allowing public school funds to follow children to private
schools for special purposes.
At the same time the scholarship board is anti-home rule. It is a
Federal board with a token appointment by the mayor. The Speaker,
minority leader and majority and minority leaders of the Senate are the
appointing authorities for a local school entity. How is that for
devaluation of power back to the localities?
Ultimately, the appropriations bill is perhaps the ultimate home rule
bill. I have, therefore, consulted with District officials. Both the
mayor and I, I repeat, oppose the voucher provision. He believes that
the way to address that provision is through the home rule council
provision in the bill.
The position of the District, therefore, is that the only way to
bring any relief to the District, which is insolvent at this time,
after months of great suffering, is to free its appropriation.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia [Ms. Norton] for her summation of this bill. No one knows
how important this bill is to the District more than she does. She
knows that the money is needed. She knows that the District is hard-
pressed.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I understand the difficult position that the
gentlewoman is in, because there may be an issue or two in the bill
with which she has a philosophical problem. But overall, I think she
has some sympathy for us supporting this bill. She did not support it,
I do not want to put words in her mouth, but I understand the dilemma
that she has. I would say to my colleague, I am deeply concerned that
if we do not get an appropriation conference report passed today, I
think it would be very, very difficult for us to come back with a
continuing resolution that authorized or appropriated any of this
Federal money, at least for the foreseeable future. I know that would
be a difficulty for the District.
We have to move on. The status quo is not acceptable. It is not
defensible. I see this conference report as progress.
While, again, there are issues in here that everyone may not agree
with, it is needed and it is necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Coleman], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I think it should come as no surprise to
anyone when the gentleman says there are two classes of children. We
have two classes of women in the bill: the rich, who can afford an
abortion for a young teenager, and the poor, who, of course, cannot get
one because if they need Federal help they cannot get it because of
this bill.
So we recognize there is a difference there for young women. So we
should not be surprised about the fact that the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] stands up and says that he hopes that this
will be the new national thing that we are going to do.
Mr. Speaker, I want to know this. How many of the private schools are
going to accept vouchers and take kids with learning disabilities,
physical impairments, mental problems? How many of those private
schools are going to take these special kinds of cases and special
children that the public school are required to take? Are they going to
take all of those?
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman asked that
question. We have total prohibition on any kind of discrimination, and
we require that any private school has to take an academically
representative group of students that apply.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, academically
representative. The gentleman has not answered the question.
The reality is that what we are doing here is picking and choosing
and leaving all the rest of the children in the public school, and I
know that is the goal of the Republican agenda. I am not too worried, I
will tell the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that the rest of the
country will follow this example because it will not work.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Gunderson], I am informed that the bill, as a matter of fact, allows
private schools to screen out and deny admission to students on the
basis of religion, disability, test scores, and behavior. That, in
fact, the corporation encourages the private school not to do that.
After the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] speaks, we will come back
and look at the specific language that says that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to this
bill. However, I am pleased the conference report language contains
language I offered during full committee markup. The language requests
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority to address in its March 1996 financial report and
plan, first, how the District plans to restore funds removed from the
Blue Plains budget and second, the timing for that restoration.
During fiscal year 1994, over $80 million dollars was transferred
from the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund. The Blue Plains budget falls
within this fund. This substantial loss of funds had led to serious
maintenance and plant operations problems at the facility.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency which recently
inspected the facility, the plant is short of staff, maintenance, and
chemicals. These shortages could potentially lead to a real threat of
sewage flowing into the Potomac River. This can cause a serious threat
to the ratepayers and suburban jurisdictions and have a devastating
environmental impact on the region.
During its inspection, EPA found failure to pay vendors and
contractors in a timely manner has resulted in contractors walking off
their jobs at Blue Plains and vendors failing to make deliveries of
chemicals or supply spare parts. This further hampers the plant's
ability to operate and maintain plant equipment. Moreover, lack of
preventive maintenance of and replacement parts for essential treatment
process units has resulted in many units becoming inoperable and/or
inaccurate.
According to EPA, the current level of staff has had a deleterious
effect on plant operations: Shortages in the required number of
engineers has restricted use of the plants ability to monitor the large
number of environmentally sensitive processes, plan for necessary
maintenance, and oversee ongoing construction projects.
In turn, EPA required the District to submit a short and long action
plan demonstrating the city's ability to address current problems and
how the city plans to meet its long term obligations.
The District submitted its plan to EPA on October 13. After a brief
review of the plan, early indications are that the plans lay out proper
activities, yet it is still uncertain how the District will be able to
finance these activities and how the transferred funds will be returned
in a timely fashion.
Current conditions at Blue Plains pose a health and safety threat to
the sewage rate payers and residents of the metropolitan area who live
downstream from the flow of untreated sewage. It poses a serious threat
to the fragile environmental conditions of the Potomac, Chesapeake Bay,
Anacostia, and Patuxent Rivers and the water life they support.
In order to prevent danger to life or environment, swift return of
the funds is necessary so that the Blue Plains facility can return to
operating in a more safe and efficient manner.
{time} 1930
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations.
[[Page H1074]]
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take this opportunity to
commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the
distinguished ranking minority member, the gentleman from California,
and all of the members of the subcommittee. I realize that my friend,
the gentleman from California, is not entirely happy with this bill,
but this, for my friends on the Republican side, is a good bill.
Members can always find reasons to vote against this bill: they do
not represent the District of Columbia, they are back in California or
the Midwest or the Northwest or the Northeast or wherever. The fact is,
we are not going to get a better bill than this. This has gone through
the process, through the hoops. There are reasons for conservatives to
be happy, and there are reasons for moderates and liberals to be happy.
The most important thing is that we are paying the bills for the
District, and we are getting the District on a track toward downsizing
their ever-increasing demands for more taxpayers' dollars.
This is a good bill. Let us put this to rest, and frankly, this will
bring us closer to completing our appropriations process for fiscal
year 1996. When this passes it will mean we only have four more bills
on the appropriation cycle.
I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote for this bill.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I will not speak to the details of this bill. We have
been batting it around enough. I do want to speak to the spirit of the
bill and the compromise that went into it.
We all knew when we went into this bill that Washington, DC was in
financial trouble. We all knew that Washington, DC had to change. We
all knew that the estimates that we had for revenues and taxes and
savings based on past legislation never came through quite the way we
guessed they would. We knew it would be difficult. Yet, somehow through
this process, we have a bill together. Now it appears that folks on one
side of the aisle do not like it because it is too conservative and
folks on the other side of the aisle do not like it because it is too
liberal.
Mr. Speaker, this bill gives $1.4 billion as a budget for the
District. That is a lot of money for a city of 554,000 people, which is
about 50,000 lower than it had 10 years ago. Because of the many
problems they have had, people have moved out of it.
This bill reduces their spending about $150 million. We know on the
committee we actually passed a bill at one time that had $260 million
in savings, but we were unable to get that through the Senate and we
were unable to move it through the floor. In anticipation of being
unable to move it through the floor, we have changed that amount of
money.
We have the Financial Control Board. It is something that I think is
going to take many, many years to change the city around, but I have
here a list of folks who are going to vote ``no'' because the spending
level is too high and the changes do not go far enough. Yet, as I hear
from this side of the aisle, you have a list of people who are going to
vote ``no'' because the cuts are too much.
Mr. Speaker, I think in order to keep this process going, in order to
not go through the continuing resolution route, this bill represents
the best compromise. We will never have a perfect Washington, DC bill.
It is never going to be the way the liberals would write it, it is
never going to be the way the conservatives would write it, but this is
our best shot for a reasonable bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to vote ``yes.''
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise to salute my colleagues,
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], for their excellent work on this
legislation, and to urge my Democrat colleagues to support the
conference report on the District of Columbia appropriations bill.
This is a good opportunity to put your vote where your rhetoric has
been. In fact, we have heard repeatedly claims from this side of the
aisle during this session of Congress that we Republicans are somehow
antieducation. The District of Columbia appropriations bill, which
includes the Gunderson package of educational reforms, is a very
proeducation bill.
We are all part-time residents of the Washington, DC area because of
our congressional duties, so we have heard the horror stories about the
District of Colombia public schools. For example, we have heard stories
regarding the restrooms at the schools, so unsanitary that the kids
refuse to use them. We have heard stories about classrooms going
without textbooks, about students going without teachers or having to
face a succession of teachers who are in the schools on a temporary or
substitute basis.
Listen to what the Gunderson bill does. First of all, it creates
public charter schools. It would allow the District of Columbia public
schools to align with other educational facilities in the District of
Columbia such as the National Science Foundation, the National Gallery
of Art, the Library of Congress, to help establish these charter
schools.
In addition, these charter schools would help restructure the
existing public schools, allowing innovative principals and teachers to
work with parents, students, and academic associations to overhaul a
system that is failing our kids. Make no doubt about it, the District
of Columbia public schools are failing our kids. They have the worst
test scores of any school district, any urban inner city school
district in the country, and only 56 percent of the kids in the
District of Columbia public schools actually graduate. This is a good
bill that brings education innovation and progress to the District of
Columbia public schools.
You say you are for education. You say we are antieducation. Here is
an opportunity to join together in a bipartisan fashion to improve
these schools, and give all students in these schools some educational
opportunity and a new lease on life.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the concerns of
the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], earlier
about where the scholarship money would go.
First of all, on page 160 of the bill, we require on line 8 that the
corporation shall ensure an equitable distribution of scholarship funds
to students at diverse academic achievement levels. On page 172 of the
bill, section 2927, we require that all eligible institutions
participating in the scholarship program must be participating in all
civil rights acts, including section 504 of the rehabilitation act.
Then we go on, on page 173, section 2928, children with disabilities,
that any private school that participates in the scholarship program
must meet all of the idea requirements here as determined by the
District of Columbia Board of Education.
Finally, I would point out on page 177, the Department of Education
at the end of 4 years must do a comparison, which includes a comparison
of test scores between scholarship students and D.C. public school
students of similar backgrounds and academic achievement.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from California [Mr. Dixon] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will have a motion to recommit to strike the voucher
section. Let me speak very fast. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Gunderson] says on page 160, line 6, he reads, and he reads part of the
paragraph. The paragraph reads: ``The corporation,'' now this is the
person giving the scholarship, ``The corporation shall attempt
[[Page H1075]]
to ensure an equitable distribution of funds to students of diverse
academic backgrounds,'' ``shall attempt.''
The other side of it is the recipient and the school. He reads, I
guess, part of the section on page 172. Keep in mind that I said that a
person could be turned down for religion, disability, test scores, or
behavior. In short, the Civil Rights Act and the AIDS Discrimination
Act say nothing about a kid being turned away for behavior or for test
scores. I am correct, a school can turn down somebody for behavior.
They can turn them down for test scores. Yes, the corporation shall
attempt to make a distribution.
At the appropriate time I will be asking to return this bill for the
purpose of striking this section. Perhaps we can write a better voucher
plan. I am interested in the kids of this District, too. From one
through six, I went to school here. I am interested in all of the kids,
not the 1,500 that this voucher system would serve. At the appropriate
time I will ask Members to vote aye on a motion to recommit.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. We stand here and fiddle while Rome
burns all around us. It is time for action. The status quo that is the
District of Columbia is no longer defendable. We need to move and we
need to move now. You can see how difficult any change is. We are
talking about minimal change, but this is all we could get, and it is a
fight, but it is a worthy fight. The future of the kids of this city,
is at stake.
We have an opportunity here to give them some positive options, give
them some opportunity in life that they did not have before, and I just
cannot understand why we would not take that action.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. RIGGS. For a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, I do not know
if the ranking member is following our conversation, but I would like
to clarify one more time for our colleagues that under the gentleman's
proposal, and in particular the Gunderson provisions, it would permit
low-income parents to choose a private school if they are dissatisfied
with their child's public school.
So under that scenario, if a low-income family is dissatisfied with
the education, the performance of the public school their child is
attending, then they would have another option available to them. They
would be able to choose a private school through the use of the
scholarships or vouchers that are in the gentleman's bill?
Mr. WALSH. That is correct. That is what this is about, providing
some choice to the parents.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say, in our relationship with the
District of Columbia, we need to pay them what we have promised. We
need to make that formula payment. Basically, it is paying our rent for
being in this district. This is the vehicle to do it. If we do not do
it with this vehicle, I do not know if we will get it done.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House for 1 minute
and ask permission to extend and revise my remarks.
It is time for Congress to recognize that school choice is a viable
and legitimate option. This is not an issue of preferring either
private or public schools, but who should have the fundamental right to
choose what is best for their children.
For those who can afford it, school choice is already an option. In
fact, an increasing number of parents, including the President, are
sending their children to private schools. Unfortunately, this option
is not available for the rest of us.
In the end, this is really about who is more capable of caring for
children. If you believe government cares more about your children than
yourself, then we should keep the status quo and make minor changes.
However, if you have the best in mind for your children, why can't you
determine what school your child attends?
School choice is about giving parents and their children access to
quality education. In a time when many schools are deteriorating, we
need to reform our education system and give parents choice.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference
report. As a former mayor, I sympathize with the need for a city to
have a set budget to work from. I greatly regret that Washington, DC,
has had to wait this long. However, the conferees have made it
impossible for me to support this legislation by including a voucher
proposal that represents a radical shift in Federal education policy.
This voucher proposal poses as a locally controlled program, while it
really holds hostage millions of dollars that could be used for
children in the District schools to force the city council to accept
vouchers that they have said they do not want. I see many problems with
this voucher program. However, the one that I find most objectionable
is the lack of provisions for an unbiased, scientific evaluation of the
effects of this experiment.
This legislation is unclear on who evaluates the program. In one
place the legislation seems to state that the corporation administering
the voucher program evaluates itself. In another, the department
evaluates the program, but only after 4 years, and is only required to
take into account a limited amount of data. Test scores, graduation
rates, and parental satisfaction are mentioned as criteria for
evaluation, but not the education levels of the parents or information
about the families. There is no provision that the schools that accept
the scholarships must administer the same tests so as to provide
comparable data. This bill does not even specify the need to examine
the overall effect this program has on the D.C. public schools. I
thought that was the whole reason for reform.
This is a broad-based experiment in children's lives and yet we are
not even going to evaluate the results properly. That is
unconscionable. For these reasons, and for all of the others mentioned
by my colleagues, I must oppose this conference report.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, with some reluctance, I rise to oppose the
D.C. appropriations bill and to urge my colleagues to support the
motion to recommit that will prevent the use of Federal funds for
private school vouchers.
Here we are again, on the floor of the House debating an
appropriations bill that should have been passed 4 months ago. But the
Republican majority continues to mismanage the people's business,
seeking to bootstrap their radical ideas to regular spending bills. And
this D.C. appropriations bill is the latest egregious example of their
scheme of legislative blackmail.
I commend my colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson, for his good
faith attempt to help the District of Columbia improve its public
schools. The citizens of this city and their elected officials have
embraced many of his ideas. But, they have categorically rejected the
idea that public dollars should be siphoned off to finance private
school education. And, yet this conference report ignores the expressed
will of D.C. citizens because radical elements in the Republican Party
insist that its their way or the highway. Those same elements have made
clear their intent to destroy public education, and they are wiling to
trample on the democratic rights of over one-half million U.S. citizens
in order to gain a foothold in their war against public education.
While this Capitol Building is the seat of national Government, it is
not the ``big house'' and the District of Columbia is not Jerry
Falwell's plantation.
Isn't it ironic that the very people who complain about Federal
intrusion into the affairs of local school districts, and other aspects
of modern life for that matter, are fighting to impose a federally
funded, federally mandated private school voucher plan on the District
of Columbia? Rest assured, if they try to force that idea on my
constituents they will be in for the fight of their political lives.
Mr. Speaker, by substantial margins the American people rate
improvement of public education as their No. 1 priority. I urge my
colleagues to reject this attempt to highjack Federal tax dollars that
instead should address that priority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired. Without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
motion to recommit offered by mr. dixon
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference
report?
Mr. DIXON. I am, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dixon moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill (H.R. 2546) to the committee of the conference with the
instruction that the conferees amend the conference report to
delete the following provisions: $5,000,000 for low-income
scholarships under the heading ``Federal Contribution for
Education Reform'', $5,000,000 for the District of Columbia
Scholarship Corporation under the heading ``Education
Reform'', and the entire text of ``Subtitle N--Low-Income
Scholarships'' of Title II authorizing scholarships for low-
income students.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, there is no debate on this
motion. The question is on the motion to recommit.
[[Page H1076]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180,
nays 232, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 22]
YEAS--180
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--232
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--21
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
DeLay
Dickey
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Gephardt
Geren
Hayes
Largent
Leach
McIntosh
Oxley
Rose
Roukema
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Williams
Wilson
Wyden
{time} 2003
Mr. GUTKNECHT and Mr. RADANOVICH changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. BAESLER and Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is
on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211,
nays 201, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 23]
YEAS--211
Abercrombie
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Collins (GA)
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Torres
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NAYS--201
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Cardin
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Foglietta
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
[[Page H1077]]
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quillen
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--22
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
DeLay
Dickey
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Gephardt
Geren
Hansen
Hayes
Largent
Leach
McIntosh
Oxley
Rose
Roukema
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Williams
Wilson
Wyden
{time} 2021
Mr. ROBERTS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. ZELIFF, BROWNBACK, and SCARBOROUGH changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________