[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.

                          ____________________