[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1403-S1406]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2546, the D.C. appropriations bill.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to 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, having met, after full and free conference, have 
     agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective 
     House this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, once again we are here debating the 
District of Columbia appropriations bill for the current fiscal year, 
which is now fully 5 months old. The city began the year strapped for 
cash and it has not received $254 million of Federal funds that will be 
available once this bill is enacted.
  The kids in the public schools are still faced with a community and 
system that has not made them a priority. The Committee on Public 
Education, known as COPE, is a group of local civic and business 
leaders who have spent nearly 6 years studying the D.C. public schools. 
In its report a year ago is stated that too many remain too invested in 
the status quo. COPE also found that the District has not really tried 
reform.
  The kids in many District public schools continue to attempt to 
prepare for life in the next century in school buildings that were 
built in the first half of this century, and are in deplorable physical 
condition. Many schools lack the infrastructure to accommodate the same 
technology that the neighborhood grocery store employs.
  If we do not begin the process of educational reform and fiscal 
recovery by passing this conference agreement we can never hope to 
achieve the goals we, the Congress, set for ourselves last year. A 
financially fit and economically stable Nation's Capital that is able 
to attract businesses, jobs, and people to support a tax base that will 
enable a public education system that prepares our kids for the future 
is an absolute necessity for this community and for our Nation. If we 
cannot do it in the District, where can you?

  Mr. President, we have a limited amount of time for debate and I do 
not intend to restate the arguments that were made on Tuesday. But it 
is important to restate that this scholarship program, limited, in both 
time and scope, is not the occasion for a national debate on the 
question of private school vouchers. We have an appropriations bill 
that should have been enacted months ago. We resolved most of the 
issues, some of which were controversial and the subject of intense 
discussion, including the other education reform initiatives, in 
relatively short order. But we had great difficulty finding common 
ground on a scholarship program, which had to be a part of this 
conference agreement with respect to the interests of the House.
  Mr. President, I hope that Senators will consider the financial 
plight of the District government and the educational future of D.C. 
kids when they cast their vote today and not the fears of a few who are 
invested in the status quo. I ask Senators to vote for cloture and 
allow the city to get on with its important rebuilding work.
  Mr. President, I will briefly mention again two other issues. We have 
gone over the abortion issue many times, and about what was reached as 
a compromise between what the Bush and Clinton administrations did. I 
talked to you yesterday and, hopefully, removed from your mind any 
concerns about Davis-Bacon problems. If there are concerns under the 
interpretation, we are ready to take care of that before this goes into 
law.
  So I urge Senators, please, review what was said yesterday and please 
pass this conference report by allowing us to have cloture.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, just 2 days ago, on Tuesday of this week, 
the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the conference report H.R. 2546, 
the District of Columbia appropriations bill. The vote was 54 to 44. 
For the benefit of Members who may have turned their attention to other 
matters, let me inform the Senate that we are about to repeat Tuesday's 
vote. However, and unless Chairman Jeffords otherwise indicates, I am 
unaware of any developments affecting the issues that led the Senate to 
reject the first cloture motion. My position therefore remains the 
same, and I urge Members to vote against the motion to invoke cloture.
  Although I am urging Members to oppose the motion at hand, I do so 
with great reluctance. As Chairman Jeffords and I have already 
indicated, the District is in dire financial straits. The 

[[Page S1404]]
Chairman of the Control Board, the Mayor, and other officials agree 
that the city will run out of cash if the balance of the Federal 
payment--some $212 million--is not released within the next several 
weeks. We need to act, not to debate. With respect to the voucher 
program set forth in the conference report, the Senate has spoken. We 
need to respect the decision of this body and move forward to develop a 
legislation that will allow the city to pay its bills and operate in an 
orderly fashion.
  Mr. President, the Senators who voted against cloture on the 
conference report are not satisfied with the status quo in the D.C. 
public school system. In my opinion, it is a national disgrace that 
children in our Nation's Capital do not have access to schools that 
prepare them to succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy. 
I believe that all of us agree that District schools need to change, 
and that they will be changed. The conference report includes a broad 
array of reforms that received bipartisan support. These reforms 
address many of the shortcomings in the District's schools and I urge 
my fellow conferees to work with congressional leadership to find a way 
to enact them.
  Mr. President, I know other Senators would like to address the Senate 
so I will yield the balance of my time to Senator Kennedy. Thank you 
and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from 
Wisconsin and also the Senator from Vermont for understanding that if 
we did not have these three inappropriate sort of riders that have been 
placed on the conference report, this legislation would go through in a 
moment by a voice vote. But it has been the judgment of the House of 
Representatives to add three different measures--one dealing with 
Davis-Bacon, in order to depress the wages of workers in the District; 
second, in restricting even private funds that could be used to help 
and assist a woman if she makes a judgment and determination for 
abortion; third, the issue on the vouchers in an appropriations bill 
that reduces the total funding, cuts back $11 million, but provides $5 
million for vouchers.
  Now, Mr. President, just at the outset of this discussion, we have to 
understand that there are certain issues where there is a public 
response and a recognized public obligation. We have recognized that 
with regard to national security. We have recognized that with regard 
to electricity, for example. And we have recognized that with regard to 
the Postal Service. Nobody would say we ought to have just the market 
of electricity and postal. Why? Because we know that the houses at the 
end of the street would not receive it, or those houses at the end of 
the street would not receive their mail.
  As a nation, for education it will require public investment of 
funds, and it will be compulsory. We are asked to accept this 
particular amendment because we are told that it will be an experiment, 
but it is not an experiment, Mr. President, because what you are doing 
is rigging the system at the very outset. What you are not giving is 
the choice and decision for the independent student to make a judgment 
to go to a private school. What you are basically doing is taking 
scarce resources from the local community and transferring them to the 
school. The school makes the judgment as to which young person it is 
going to select. It is not the individual, it is the school that makes 
that judgment. It is not choice for the individual or the individual 
parents, it is choice for the school.
  What are we going to learn from this? If the school system accepts 2 
percent of the 80,000 students in the District and are able to educate 
them, are we supposed to assume that because they can, in effect, skim, 
they do not have to meet other responsibilities or requirements in 
accepting students that may have some language difficulties, or may be 
homeless, or have other kinds of difficulties? Are we going to say, 
well, it is a great experiment? Well this has been rejected by 16 
different States. The only city that has tried that has been Milwaukee, 
and any fair evaluation would show that it is not successful.
  We do not reject innovative, creative ways at the local community to 
enhance the achievements of education, and we have included and 
supported many of those proposals in the Goals 2000 legislation and 
other proposals.
  Basically, those people who are supporting this system said, ``Let's 
have a competition.'' What happens in the United States when you have a 
competition, you have winners and you have losers. What happens on the 
stock market, you have those that make money and those that close their 
doors.
  That should not be the test for education in America. We are not 
saying you will have winners and losers. We are saying that those 
children who have those needs ought to be educated in our society, and 
that reaches the fundamental objection to this proposal. Effectively, 
we are saying, OK, the 2 percent will be winners, they will be able to 
go ahead in terms of a private school system, and we are basically 
abandoning all the other children with scarce resources.
  Mr. President, I think it is very clear what the will of the people 
in the District of Columbia is. It has been so interesting during the 
course of this debate and other debates. We hear the statements that 
Washington does not know best. We have here an issue that was rejected 
8 to 1 by the District of Columbia and is being jammed down the throats 
of the people of the District of Columbia. They do not want it. The 
very way it is constructed in this conference report says that, if they 
do not use it, they do not get the money. That is a fine choice. That 
is a fine choice to give the people in the District of Columbia. We do 
not here know what is best. The people in the District of Columbia have 
rejected it and 16 other States have rejected this, but we, in our 
almighty knowledge, are saying you will have to take it, people in the 
District of Columbia, or otherwise we will not provide these resources.
  It is an unwise education policy. It will not demonstrate any 
different kind of factors in terms of schools. It is so interesting 
that those who make the argument talk about what is happening in the 
schools. Give the children an opportunity to escape from crime and 
violence. At the same time we are reducing the support for drug-free 
schools by 50 percent. Give those children a chance to learn. And at 
the same time we are reducing our commitment to give those children the 
advancements in the title I programs and math and science and other 
literacy programs.
  What is happening, Mr. President, is a choice. Now, are we going to 
abandon the children of the District of Columbia? I say we should not. 
By doing so, we will vote ``no'' in terms of the cloture vote.
  I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Wisconsin and the Senator from Massachusetts. The truth of the matter 
is that this is really a dirty trick on the schoolchildren of the 
District. Mr. President, 51 schools are in the District of Columbia, 
and only 8 of the 51 qualify for this so-called $3,000 scholarship. Mr. 
President, seven of the eight are religious schools. The $3,000 
scholarship is not going to get them into schools. They will get them 
into the courts. It is a dirty trick. It is throwing a 50-yard line to 
the child 100 yards offshore and telling them to swim for it.
  Most of all, the very crowd that is sponsoring this nonsense--here I 
call it nonsense. We are not living up to the needs of public 
education. The fact is, in order to get this, this year, this Congress 
would be going into the $5 million a year program, cut $3 billion from 
public education. It is unheard of to try to start a private program. 
And the very crowd that sponsors this nonsense is a group that comes 
around here and beseeches us about balancing the budget and 
constitutional amendments to balance it and everything else of that 
kind. We are without money, running a $286 billion deficit last year, 
1995. We do not have the money for this, and we are going to start a 
multibillion-dollar spending program?
  I said that was my suspicion earlier this week. Now I find it to be 
the fact, looking at the ``Education Daily,'' and the plan of 
Representative Steve Gunderson, Republican of Wisconsin, saying the 
national program authorizes the spending of up to $1 billion a year for 
vouchers. The $5 million program 

[[Page S1405]]
over the 5 years, in a few days' time, has already gotten to $5 
billion. Suppose the program works? Where is the money? Where is that 
crowd that is going to come up now and start talking about balancing 
the budgets?
  Yes, we have to cut spending; yes, in this Senator's opinion, we have 
to increase taxes in order to pay for what we get--not cut taxes. More 
than anything else, we should not start off on fanciful programs not 
the responsibility beyond the constitutional function of this Congress 
that will cost billions more. Do not have this group saying they want 
to balance budgets and in the same breath start $5 billion programs for 
private endeavor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my 
friend and colleague from Vermont. Here we are again. Here we go again. 
I do not know whether we will change any minds, but I do think this is 
an important issue to debate and an important vote.
  I am disappointed by the extent of opposition to this bill that is 
desperately needed by the District of Columbia apparently primarily 
because of the portion that would establish a scholarship fund for poor 
children. I do not get it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
Mayor Marion Barry dated February 23, 1996.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     The District of Columbia,

                               Washington, DC., February 23, 1996.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lieberman: As a member of the Democratic 
     Party, supporter of the District, and a champion of 
     progressive and democratic principles, policies, and ideals, 
     I want to appeal to you to assist the District on our FY 1996 
     Budget. The Senate is scheduled to vote on cloture for the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations bill, HR 2546, on 
     Tuesday, February 27th. I urge you, in the strongest terms, 
     to support cloture and conclude this long delayed District 
     business.
       Two hundred forty-seven million dollars ($247) of the 
     District's Federal payment, the compensation that attempts to 
     make up for the significant Congressional limitations on 
     local revenue sources and governing authority, are still 
     unavailable because the appropriations bill, almost 5 months 
     after the start of the fiscal year, has still not been 
     finally approved. The needs of hundreds of thousands of 
     District residents are being held hostage to this delay.
       Fiscally speaking, we can wait no longer for our Federal 
     payment. We have just completed our 1995 audit showing that 
     we have significantly cut spending in 1995 by $281 million 
     and decreased payroll by over 3,000 employees. The FY 1996 
     budget emphatically shows that we have stopped the 
     hemorrhaging of spending and reversed the tide. Last week, I 
     released my transformation document and the FY 97 budget 
     which shows a decrease of 10,000 employees by year 2000 and a 
     radical transformation of the D.C. Government. However, this 
     transformation and FY 97 budget is predicated on the FY 96 
     budget and the full Federal payment. Our radical savings in 
     1997, 98 and 99 are integrally related to this Federal 
     payment in 1996.
       The District is significantly cash short. We are in a 
     desperate situation. If we do not obtain our $247 million in 
     Federal payment now we will run out of cash by the end of 
     March. We have urgent needs for these delayed funds. Although 
     the Federal payment is less than 20% of the General Fund, it 
     is a critical resource. Our cash flow depends on the $660 
     million in Federal payment that we should have received on 
     October 1, 1996. Unlike the Federal Government, we cannot 
     borrow right away.
       Public safety is our top priority yet the delayed Federal 
     payment is hampering our crime fighting capabilities. We have 
     business vendors that are going out of business because of 
     our delayed payments to them. Businesses are laying off 
     employees, closing their doors and vowing never to do 
     business in the District again. School books and building 
     repairs are not possible due to lack of funds. Trash pickups 
     suffer because equipment is old and cannot be repaired. We 
     are 3\1/2\ months behind in our Medicaid payments. Our 
     situation is desperate. We need this money immediately.
       In addition, it is incredible that we have begun the budget 
     process for Fiscal Year 1997 without having Fiscal Year 1996 
     resolved. We are just beginning our local Council hearings on 
     the FY 97 budget yet we have no FY 96 budget. This situation 
     makes accurate budget determination impossible.
       I know that many Senators rightfully have serious problems 
     with the voucher programs established in the appropriations 
     bill. So do I. I have disdain for vouchers and have opposed 
     them at every turn in the District. This Appropriations Bill 
     is not a vouchers bill: it does not authorize the District to 
     initiate vouchers, it only gives local officials the option 
     to do so if they chose. As much as I dislike the voucher 
     issue, I cannot go another week without our full Federal 
     payment. Real human suffering is at stake.
       I urge you to vote for cloture. It is crucial that the 
     District of Columbia be fully funded, as it should have been 
     months ago. Senate Democrats need to allow the District's 
     appropriations Conference Report to be considered so that the 
     District can finally receive its fiscal 1996 appropriations. 
     You have been supportive of the District in the past and I 
     thank you for your support. Today I ask for your support 
     again. I urge you to release this budget and allow us to get 
     on with the business of radically transforming the D.C. 
     Government and providing our residents with the services they 
     deserve. If you have any questions, please call me at 727-
     6263.
           Sincerely,
                                                Marion Barry, Jr.,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. In this letter, Mayor Barry literally pleads for us, 
for the sake of fiscal continuity of the District of Columbia, that we 
pass this bill. In it he says:

       I know that many Senators rightfully have serious problems 
     with the voucher programs established in the appropriations 
     bill. So do I. . . . This appropriations bill is not a 
     vouchers bill . . . it only gives local officials the option 
     to do so [which is to say initiate a voucher program] If they 
     choose.

  Then he says, ``As much as I dislike the voucher issue, I cannot go 
another week without our full Federal payment. Real human suffering is 
at stake.''
  What is stopping us? It is the voucher program. We all know this is 
controversial. I notice in the paper that some of my friends from the 
National Education Association claimed victory on the vote the other 
day, one saying, ``This is much bigger than D.C.''
  The big point here is the District of Columbia and its future. I 
think maybe there is something bigger involved in the voucher program, 
but it is just a question of whether we are going to feel obliged to 
defend the status quo and the American public education system, which 
we know is not working for a lot of our children, or whether we will 
experiment, a very, very small amount of money compared to the billions 
spent on public education, to test what is going to happen to the kids, 
poor kids, whose parents decide they are trapped by their income in 
schools that are not educating them, schools in which they are 
terrorized very often, tragically, the ones who want to learn, by young 
hoodlums, stating it specifically. This program would allow them to 
break out of that. Let us see what effect it would have on those kids, 
and let us see what effect it would have on the public schools in the 
District.

  My mind is open. I have been a supporter of this voucher or 
scholarship program, but if these cuts occur and they occur more 
broadly than contemplated in the bill Senator Coats and I introduced, 
and somehow we find they cripple the public school system, we will step 
back and decide maybe it was not a good idea, was not worth it.
  I doubt that will happen. I think what is going to happen is we are 
going to create some opportunity for kids to break out of the cycle of 
poverty and maybe we are all going to learn a little bit, including the 
public schools, about how to better educate our children. There are 
tens of thousands of heroes working in our public school system. That 
is the heart of our hopes for the future of our children, the public 
school system. But it is just not working for a lot of our kids.
  I really appeal to my friends in the teachers organizations: Do not 
be defensive about this. You are strong. The public education system 
gets so much of public investment. I so actively support all the 
efforts to reform our public schools. This is not an either/or. If you 
are for the scholarship bill, it does not mean you are against public 
education.
  The fact is, what we have to focus on here is the kids. What is best 
for our children? Is there only one established way to educate them and 
brighten their future, or can we try another one, without doing damage 
to that?
  I am not hopeful about the outcome of the vote, but I appeal to my 
colleagues here. Listen to Mayor Barry's appeal to pass this bill and 
give this alternative and these 11,000 poor kids in the District a 
chance for a better education and a better life.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time is left? 
  
[[Page S1406]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains on the time of the Senator from 
Vermont, 5 minutes and 50 seconds. The opposition time is 3 minutes and 
17 seconds.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will proceed, then.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator wants to make a final 
remark, out of courtesy he is entitled to it. I would make just a brief 
response, but I intend to use the 3 or 4 minutes that remain. So, 
whatever is agreeable to the floor manager.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would prefer--if the Senator would like to proceed at 
this point, I will allow him to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just a final few facts. It has been the 
Republican Congress that cut back $29 million last year from funding, 
public support for schools and schoolchildren in the District. They are 
cutting back $15 million this year and giving the $5 million as a bonus 
prize that if the school districts are going to use the voucher system, 
they can get it. If they do not, they will not. It is legislative 
blackmail, using the worst form of legislative blackmail by using the 
children of the District of Columbia as pawns.
  There is not a person in this body who has not said they would vote 
for this D.C. appropriations bill, if these three amendments were 
removed, by voice vote. We can do it now. We can do it this afternoon.
  This concept has been rejected about trying to jam vouchers down the 
throat of the District of Columbia. It has been rejected by them 8-to-1 
previously. Why do we know better, we here? We could pass the D.C. 
appropriation this afternoon by voice vote in a matter of minutes. But, 
no. They say, even though we have had the vote in the U.S. Senate and 
even though their position has been rejected, we are still going to 
play the card of ``we are on the side of the District of Columbia's 
children, and those that will not permit this to go through are not.''
  Mr. President, the parents of the District of Columbia ought to know 
who has been standing by them, not just on this legislation but 
historically--historically. We reject that. We believe the time for 
political blackmail is over. Let us drop these three provisions, voice 
vote that, get the money and the resources in the District and fight 
for them to try to get some additional resources to enhance educational 
achievement and accomplishment for the children of the District of 
Columbia.
  I retain the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Massachusetts. All those comments and dire remarks he made would 
have been perfectly appropriate if we had been talking about the 
original House provisions that were in the bill. But that was before 
the conference report. We are not dealing with the problems that have 
been referred to by my friend from Massachusetts.
  Let me go through this. There is no jamming it down anybody's throat. 
That comment was made. The District council can refuse to spend a 
single penny on tuition scholarships--not a penny. If they do, the 
money may be lost if there is no agreement with the scholarship 
corporation, but there does not need to be a cent spent unless the city 
agrees to spend it.
  There is a corporation set up which, must agree with the city 
council. The corporation will approve all applications for 
scholarships. In other words, it is not a helter-skelter, ``Here is a 
tuition payment and you can go anywhere you want.'' It has to be 
approved by the scholarship corporation, which must also be reviewed by 
the District council.
  Under the conference agreement, not the House version, schools 
enrolling scholarship students must conform to all of the 
constitutional protections. The disbursal of the funds must be balanced 
economically. The disbursal of the funds must be balanced 
educationally, so we do not get a disparate amount of money being spent 
towards those who are better off, even among those who are eligible for 
scholarships--it is all low income--just that they are the economically 
relatively well-situated.
  Second, there are two sets of scholarships in the bill. All of the 
money can be spent on remedial scholarships, which everybody agrees to. 
The worst problem the city has right now is we have 20,000 or 30,000 
young people going through the system who are going to either graduate 
functionally illiterate or drop out. Those are the ones we are focusing 
on in all of the educational reform. The city council priority, I am 
sure, and the pressure of the city, I am sure, will be to spend all of 
that money or almost all of it on the scholarships which are for 
remedial use, after-school use, or other programs so these kids can be 
brought up to the status where they can be functionally literate.
  Also, we must consider what may happen, and I hope does not happen, 
on the House side. We have been told that if this loses here, this very 
scaled-down proposal that we are voting on here, not the one that has 
been described--if this fails, if this modicum of tuition scholarship 
fails, then we may lose the whole educational package. That would be a 
travesty; hopefully that will not be the case if we do fail here today.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on my time for just a very brief 
question?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will suspend at this point for the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Just on that reference, as I understand it, under the 
conference committee it creates five new boards, five new boards, and 
defunds the elected school board of the District of Columbia. Am I 
correct?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. No, the Senator is not correct. This was not the 
intention of the bill, and that will be rectified. But, because the 
District council reduced the budget for the board's staff and 
operations, after the conferees had agreed to this provision, that is 
the way it could be interpreted. We are willing to reprogram some of 
money in this bill for purposes of the board.
  Mr. KENNEDY. But as it stands in this bill, you have funded five new 
boards and failed to fund the school board, as I understand it?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. On Tuesday the Senator from Wisconsin and I had a 
colloquy to clarify the status of the board. Yes, there are other new 
boards that are created for the purposes of educational reform. That is 
correct.
  May I inquire how much time I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a minute and 53 seconds 
remaining. Your opponents have 21 seconds remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield whatever time I have.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to close here. I hope this is 
very clear to my colleagues, and I will make sure they know what we are 
voting upon today. I hope you would concentrate on what the actual 
situation is as to the tuition scholarships. There may be not a single 
penny spent unless the city council agrees to it. Keep that in mind. It 
is all local control. The Mayor says it is fine with him because it is 
all local control. So I urge my colleagues to support cloture. I yield 
the remainder of my time.

                          ____________________