[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9868-S9874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now turn to consideration of Calendar No. 155, S. 1156, the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1156) 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, 1998, and for other 
     purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the bill.
  The Senator from North Carolina.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I send to the desk a list of staff. I 
ask unanimous consent they be allowed full privilege of the floor 
during the consideration of S. 1156, the D.C. appropriations bill.
  The list follows:

       Mary Beth Nethercutt; Jay Kimmitt; Terry Sauvain; Neyla 
     Arnas;s Kate O'Malley; David Landers; Liz Tankersley; Quinn 
     Dodd; and Jim Hyland.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the fiscal year 
1998 District of Columbia appropriations bill to the Senate.
  This budget is the first I have had the opportunity to present to the 
Senate since becoming the chairman of the District of Columbia 
Appropriations Subcommittee. This is essentially a clean bill, with no 
new policy riders.
  I am very pleased that this budget was reported favorably by the full 
Appropriations Committee by a vote of 27 to 1. This is a bipartisan 
bill, and a bill that reflects the consensus of both the Financial 
Control Board established by Congress and the city's elected 
leadership.
  This budget of $4.2 billion is a smaller budget than last year's $5.1 
billion budget for two reasons.
  First, the Federal Government is providing the city with fewer 
Federal dollars. This past July, Congress enacted landmark legislation 
restructuring the city's budget, transferring some city functions to 
the Federal Government, and in exchange, cutting the Federal payment to 
the District.
  That legislation also added some important management reforms at my 
urging. I'll have more to say about these structural changes and 
management reforms in a moment.
  Second, this is a smaller budget because it is the first balanced 
budget submitted to the Congress by city officials since 1993. That one 
proved very unbalanced. This one will be balanced.
  As many of my colleagues know, the law enacted by Congress in 1995 
creating a Financial Control Board included a timetable requiring the 
city of Washington, DC to submit a balanced budget to Congress by next 
year.
  Fortunately, the Control Board and the D.C. Council managed to agree 
on enough spending cuts to submit a balanced budget to Congress 1 year 
ahead of schedule. That is essentially the budget before the Senate 
today.
  This balanced budget cuts roughly $85 million from last year's 
operating budget, not to mention a reduction of over $500 million in 
the direct Federal contribution to the city, from $712 million last 
year down to $190 million this year.
  Most agencies in the District of Columbia government have been cut. 
One exception is the police department, which received a modest 
increase reflecting a citywide effort--and I might say a nationwide 
effort--to crack down on crime within the city.
  Perhaps the most important point is that both the Control Board and 
the D.C. Council have agreed to these cuts.

[[Page S9869]]

  The Control Board and the D.C. Council worked together to craft a 
consensus budget. That consensus has been incorporated into this bill.
  I do not think it is necessary for the U.S. Senate to revisit every 
spending decision that has been agreed upon by both the council and the 
control board, especially since we have achieved a balanced budget 1 
year ahead of time.
  Such decisions are long overdue even if it took some prodding from 
the Congress to get. I think it is the responsibility of the Senate to 
ratify those decisions once they have been made.
  In addition to being the first balanced budget in several years, this 
budget pays for many of the structural changes and management reforms, 
including the District of Columbia Revitalization Act, signed into law 
on August 5, 1997.
  For example, the Revitalization Act transferred the city's prison 
system, the courts, and a huge unfunded pension liability of $5 billion 
to the Federal Government. In exchange, the Congress will no longer 
provide an annual Federal payment of $660 million or a $52 million 
annual payment on the pension liability. Instead, this bill provides a 
one-time Federal contribution of $190 million as authorized by the 
Revitalization Act. Of that $190 million, the bill directs that $30 
million be applied to pay down on the city's debt.
  The Revitalization Act has been called a rescue plan for the District 
of Columbia. I feel strongly that any rescue plan must first rescue the 
city from terrible mismanagement, waste, and unresponsive and 
irresponsible local government.
  I insisted that the rescue plan, and the majority leader with me 
insisted that the rescue plan include the Management Reform Act of 1997 
to begin the process of cleaning house in each of the major city 
agencies.
  The Management Reform Act authorized the control board to hire 
professional consultants to conduct a top-to-bottom review of nine 
major city agencies to map out a plan for improving the quality of 
services.
  This District of Columbia appropriations bill provides $8 million to 
pay for the consultants to go into the various city agencies.
  The structural changes in the Revitalization Act provide the city 
with a one-time windfall of $200 million. I am pleased that the mayor, 
the council, and the Control Board agreed that this windfall should not 
be used for a spending spree and that none of the funds should go 
toward increasing the operating costs of the city.
  Of the $200 million available, $160 million will be applied to pay 
down the city's accumulated deficit. The remaining $40 million will be 
used to make infrastructure repairs and the management changes and 
productivity improvements suggested by the management consultants. The 
infrastructure of the city is in dire need of much improvement.
  The Management Reform Act also called for the immediate dismissal of 
the heads of nine major city agencies and called on the Mayor to either 
nominate new officials or renominate the current officials to head each 
of the agencies, with each nomination subject to the consent and 
approval of the Control Board. In other words, a final decision rests 
with the Control Board.
  In order to preserve the checks and balances between the executive 
and the legislative branches and the District of Columbia, section 133 
of this appropriations bill makes clear that the D.C. Council does have 
official responsibility for confirming the Mayor's nominations to head 
those agencies. But then again, I reiterate, the final decision rests 
with the Control Board.
  Some Members expressed concern to me that funding for the homeless 
may be reduced by a consequence of this very tight budget. Section 146 
of the bill directs the District government to maintain homeless 
services at the same level for fiscal year 1998 as the level for fiscal 
year 1997. I think this can be accomplished in a manner that is 
consistent with the spending restraints needed to maintain a balanced 
budget.

  Perhaps no issue received more attention in recent weeks than the 
inability of the District's public schools to open on time. It was a 
local and a national embarrassment. As the new chairman of the D.C. 
subcommittee, I am going to make sure that such a delay does not happen 
again.
  Section 147 of this bill directs the Control Board and General 
Becton, the CEO of the D.C. public schools, to report to the House and 
Senate appropriations and authorizing committees for the District of 
Columbia no later than April 1, 1998, of any and all necessary measures 
to ensure that the schools open on time in the fall of 1998.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues on the subcommittee, Senator 
Boxer, the ranking member, and Senator Hutchison of Texas.
  I also thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Senator 
Stevens, and our distinguished ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their 
leadership and assistance on this bill.
  In summary, as I said, this is a consensus bill and the first 
balanced budget the District has seen in some time. This one truly is 
balanced. This bill funds the tough medicine of management reforms as 
well as restructuring of courts and corrections enacted by the Congress 
and signed into law by the President. It is a good bill and it is a 
bipartisan bill.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield to our ranking member, my good 
friend, Senator Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I thank the chairman of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator 
Faircloth. I thank him for the hard work he has put into this bill. I 
thank his staff, and I thank the staff on our side. I think it is very 
fair to say they worked beautifully together.
  We do have basically a consensus bill here. There are a couple of 
provisions that I am sure Senator Faircloth isn't enamored with and I 
am sure there are a couple of provisions that this Senator isn't 
enamored with. I do believe in local control --that cities and counties 
should be able to make their own policies in terms of how they spend 
their own health funds, how they spend funds that they raise.
  There are a couple of problems in this bill. But Senator Faircloth is 
correct, there are no new riders here. The problems that I have with 
this bill this year were in this bill last year. So I just hope that as 
we take up this last appropriations bill--this is the 13th one--that we 
will have a relatively easy time of it.
  I hope that any amendments that are offered here will be 
noncontroversial amendments that both sides can agree to. 
Unfortunately, I am hearing that may not be the case, that this bill 
may become the vehicle for some very controversial amendments.
  If that happens, so be it. Senator Faircloth and I will be on our 
feet, and we will manage that in the best way we can with the 
cooperation of colleagues. But I really do hope that Senators from both 
sides would refrain from those kinds of amendments, because this bill 
was a long time in coming. This kind of consensus over the District of 
Columbia was a long time in coming. We put so much work into it, 
particularly the chairman.
  I see that Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has joined us to sit 
in on this debate. There was a tremendous amount of work on her part in 
getting us to reach this consensus.
  I have heard that it is possible we are going to have an amendment on 
vouchers. I want to make the point right here as the minority ranking 
member that I have discussed this amendment with my colleagues on this 
side. We are not going to look kindly upon any amendment that would 
look at helping 2 to 3 percent of the children in Washington, DC, while 
leaving 97 to 98 percent of those children without anything at all.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will yield in a moment so I do not lose this track. I 
will absolutely yield.
  I say to my colleagues who may or may not be listening to the opening 
of the debate, should we be faced with that, we will have an 
alternative that will help 100 percent of the children--that will help 
100 percent of the children. We are working on that because we are here 
talking about people's lives, not about philosophy of education, not 
about trying somebody's pet idea. We should not be doing that. We 
should be in fact reaching out to all the children.

[[Page S9870]]

  Again, I say to my colleagues, I could offer a number of amendments 
here that would be controversial. I do not really want to do that. I 
know other colleagues could as well. I know that I feel as strongly as 
any colleague on certain of these matters. But this is an 
appropriations bill. This isn't an authorization bill. This isn't the 
education authorization bill where we can debate, from morning till 
night, what helps kids most--making sure that our public schools are 
the best in the world or taking a small segment of children and saying, 
Well, if you draw the lucky straw, you can run away from a public 
school, instead of making that public school the greatest it could be.
  I have to say that I went to public schools from kindergarten through 
college. Some of the people who like me could say, Well, look what 
great things public schools can do, and some who do not, could say, You 
see, those public schools aren't very good. But the bottom line is, 
whatever you think of an individual who did get that chance, we do know 
that we have the education in this country that we can give to our 
children so they can be the future Senators, they can be the future 
leaders of the world.
  When we lose that because we decide we are going to abandon our 
children because of some political theory, I think it is a sad state 
for us. So I am very much hoping that we do not get into that debate. 
But if we do, as you can see, we are prepared for it.
  I will be glad to yield to my friend from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you.
  I actually was prepared to put a question to the Senator from 
California.
  I want to commend the Senator for her stewardship and working with 
the Senator from North Carolina on this issue because getting this 
appropriations passed for the District of Columbia is not only 
important but long overdue. It is unfortunate that the District winds 
up being a guinea pig of sorts for every kind of experiment that we 
have.
  I just commend the Senator from California for the poignancy of her 
statement and her plea that amendments not be brought to this bill that 
would delay its passage.
  It is kind of open knowledge that the schools in the District of 
Columbia, many of them, have been closed because they were crumbling 
and falling down. The courts would not allow children to attend schools 
in that kind of condition. And they have just recently reopened.
  In fact, we had working in my office two young high schoolers from 
the District of Columbia. Pursuant to a project that Congresswoman 
Eleanor Holmes Norton put together for all the displaced children of 
the District, we took two of them into our office as interns while the 
schools were closed down.
  The schools have now reopened and those children are back where they 
ought to be, in a classroom, but it just seems to me to further 
displace all of those children because of a filibuster or an argument 
around an experiment with the District of Columbia schools would be 
cruel to say the least, and certainly an unfortunate development.
  So I commend my colleague for her plea in the first instance that we 
not have this battle because there is so much at stake, but also to put 
the question to her whether or not it is her opinion that the District 
can afford to delay further to wait for this appropriation to be 
finalized?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, clearly, all the work that the 
chairman has done, along with Congresswoman Norton, Senator Hutchison, 
myself, all of our staffs, this has been hard. As Senator Faircloth has 
said, we have a balanced budget submitted here. As a part of the 
agreement on the balanced budget plan of 1997, signed into law, the 
President forwarded to Congress a series of budget amendments to 
implement the Revitalization Act for Washington, DC.
  So we are moving along. It has not been easy. I think every Member of 
the Senate--at least it is my feeling--would like to see us turn this 
Capital around. I think we have great pride in this Capital. We are 
very concerned about some of its problems. I think we are on the road 
to addressing them.
  So my colleague, in asking her question, is implying that a delay 
would send the wrong signal to Washington, DC, residents, would send 
the wrong signal, frankly, to the whole country, that we are backing 
off, and here they go again, adding extraneous matters to a DC 
appropriations bill.

  What I hear around is not very promising. I hear that these 
controversial amendments are coming. I make this plea to whoever might 
be listening to this opening debate on both sides: That we refrain from 
controversial amendments. This is the last bill we are getting together 
here. We should move it forward, keep it free of this controversy, move 
forward, do our business, do our work and get on with the Senate's 
business.
  Mr. President, the fiscal year 1998 District of Columbia 
appropriations bill was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee 
on September 9, 1997, by a vote of 26 to 1. I commend the chairman of 
the subcommittee, Mr. Faircloth, for his efforts to produce a 
bipartisan appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. While the 
bill contains a few provisions I do not support, in most respects, I 
think we succeeded in producing a consensus bill.
  I will speak briefly about the three principal aspects of this bill: 
Federal funds in the bill; District of Columbia funds in the bill; and 
general provisions in the bill.


                             federal funds

  The bill includes $820 million in budget authority in Federal funds 
for the District of Columbia. These funds are to be used to implement 
the provisions of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997, which was incorporated into the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and enacted into law on August 5, 1997.
  Subsequently, on August 14, 1997, the President forwarded to Congress 
a series of budget amendments to implement the provisions of the 
Revitalization Act. The bill fully funds the President's revised budget 
and, in addition, provides $8 million for management reforms, $30 
million for the full authorization of $190 million for the Federal 
contribution and $5 million for a reimbursement to the National Park 
Service for Park Police services.


                       district of columbia funds

  In response to the Revitalization Act, the District government, 
including the mayor and the city council, and the control board, 
submitted to Congress a consensus and balanced budget, incorporating 
the changes made by the Revitalization Act.
  The revised District budget for fiscal year 1998 is $4,693,637,000. 
The committee adopted the consensus balanced budget without change.


                           general provisions

  Most of the general provisions included in the bill have been 
included in previous years and restate existing law.
  With regard to section 134, which restricts the use of funds for 
abortions, the bill states that no funds--Federal or local--may be used 
for this purpose.
  As I said during committee markup, I believe this provision to be an 
unwarranted intrusion in the affairs of the District of Columbia and I 
may offer an amendment at the appropriate time to allow the District of 
Columbia to use its own funds to pay for abortions for poor women.
  Another general provision prohibits funds being used by the District 
to implement its domestic partners law. Again, I believe this is an 
unwarranted and inappropriate intrusion by the Federal Government into 
matters under local control.
  One general provision was included in the bill at my request. It 
would provide that the D.C. initiative homeless services in the 
District of Columbia be maintained in fiscal year 1998 at the fiscal 
year 1997 level.
  My amendment prevents a reduction in services to the homeless which 
had been recommended in the consensus budget from the District.
  Again, I commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Faircloth, 
for his efforts to produce a bipartisan bill. I would also like to 
express my thanks to the Appropriations Committee staff--Terry Sauvain 
of the Democratic staff and Mary Beth Nethercutt of the majority--for 
their assistance in helping us bring this bill to the floor today.
  Finally, Mr. President, with respect to amendments that may be 
offered to this bill, I hope my colleagues will refrain from proposing 
amendments that

[[Page S9871]]

are not germane to this measure. The new fiscal year begins in only a 
few days, and the District of Columbia desperately needs to have its 
new budget in place. So I hope we can quickly pass a bill with broad 
bipartisan support and send it to the President for signature.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending measure is S. 1156, the 
fiscal year 1998 District of Columbia appropriations bill.
  This appropriations bill provides Federal payments to the District of 
Columbia totaling $820.0 million. The bill provides $190 million for 
the Federal contribution to the District of Columbia, $169 million to 
operate the District's correctional facilities for felons, $302 million 
to build new correctional facilities to replace the Lorton facility, 
$146 million to operate the District Court System, $8 million to 
implement management reform initiatives, and $5 million to the National 
Park Service to support U.S. Park Police operations in the District.
  This appropriation is in addition to the resources allocated to the 
District by the Balanced Budget Act and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 
1997. Combined, the two laws provide tax breaks and mandatory spending 
worth $4.5 billion over 10 years. Because the cost of taking over the 
District's $5.8-billion pension liability is largely delayed until 
after this period, the total bailout is worth substantially more to the 
District.
  This appropriation bill is at the subcommittee's revised 302(b) 
allocation for both budget authority and outlays.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      D.C. APPROPRIATIONS, 1998, SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                                   [Fiscal year 1998, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                Defense  Nondefense   Crime   Mandatory   Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Budget authority............................................  .......        820   .......  .........      820
  Outlays.....................................................  .......        500   .......  .........      500
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority............................................  .......        820   .......  .........      820
  Outlays.....................................................  .......        500   .......  .........      500
President's request:
  Budget authority............................................  .......        777   .......  .........      777
  Outlays.....................................................  .......        479   .......  .........      479
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority............................................  .......  ..........  .......  .........  .......
  Outlays.....................................................  .......  ..........  .......  .........  .......
Senate-Reported bill compared to:
  Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority..........................................  .......  ..........  .......  .........  .......
    Outlays...................................................  .......  ..........  .......  .........  .......
  President's request:
    Budget authority..........................................  .......         43   .......  .........       43
    Outlays...................................................  .......         21   .......  .........       21
  House-passed bill:
    Budget authority..........................................  .......        820   .......  .........      820
    Outlays...................................................  .......        500   .......  .........      500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for consistency with current scorekeeping
  conventions.

                           Amendment No. 1248

(Purpose: Technical amendments on the part of the managers of the bill)

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which 
is a series of technical amendments, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Boxer, and I ask they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], for 
     himself and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 1248.

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 2, strike all after the word ``Authority'' on line 
     11, to the end of line 12.
       On page 2, line 22, before the colon, insert: ``, which 
     shall be deposited into an escrow account held by the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, which shall allocate the funds to the 
     Mayor at such intervals and in accordance with such terms and 
     conditions as it considers appropriate to implement the 
     financial plan for the year''.
       On page 4, line 4, strike ``$116,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$103,000,000''.
       On page 4, line 15, strike ``$30,000,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$43,000,000''.
       On page 29, strike all after ``the'' on line 16, to the end 
     of line 25, and insert: ``District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority 
     (Authority). Appropriations made by this Act for such 
     programs or functions are conditioned only on the approval by 
     the Authority of the required reorganization plans.''.
       On page 33, strike all after ``Financial'' on line 19, and 
     insert: ``Responsibility and Management''.
       On page 41, strike all after ``(B)'' on line 24, through 
     ``$129,946,000'' on line 25, and insert: ''$4,811,906,000 (of 
     which $118,269,000''.
       On page 42, line 16, after ``Assistance,'' insert: 
     ``Authority''.
       On page 17, after the period on line 25, insert:


                      Correctional Industries Fund

       For the Correctional Industries Fund, established by the 
     District of Columbia Correctional Industries Establishment 
     Act, approved October 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 1000; Public Law 88-
     622), $3,332,000 from other funds.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared, and I ask 
for its immediate adoption.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. This has been cleared. We urge adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1248) was agreed to.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, we were expecting some other people to 
offer amendments and I assume they are coming down.
  In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Legislative Branch Appropriations 
                           Conference Report

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at 5:45 p.m. 
tonight the Senate proceed to the legislative branch appropriation 
conference report and at that time a vote occur on adoption of the 
conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I ask that it be in order now to ask for the yeas and 
nays on the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1249

 (Purpose: To provide scholarship assistance for District of Columbia 
               elementary and secondary school students)

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Coverdell and Mr. 
     Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 1249.

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oregon is waiting 
to bring forward an amendment and I will not take but just a few 
minutes. We have sent the amendment to the desk as the pending 
business. It will be debated tomorrow. Senator Lieberman and I are 
joining as cosponsors in offering this amendment. I have a number of 
Senators, I think on both sides of the aisle, that wish to speak to it. 
There will be ample time for them to speak tomorrow on the amendments. 
They do not need to be concerned about rushing over here now. We did, 
however, want to have the amendment introduced so it is the pending 
business when we begin tomorrow.
  In brief summary, the amendment provides opportunity scholarships for 
children in the District of Columbia in grades K through 12 whose 
family income is 185 percent or below the poverty level. The 
scholarships can be used for tuition costs of public or private 
scholarships in the District of Columbia, and adjacent counties in 
Virginia and Maryland. Scholarships are available for tutoring of 
students who attend public schools in the District.
  The legislation creates a District of Columbia Scholarship 
Commission, a seven-member private, nonprofit corporation, to 
administer the scholarship program and certify institutions that will 
be eligible to participate in the scholarship program. One board member 
will be appointed by the mayor of

[[Page S9872]]

Washington, DC, and the remaining six are to be appointed by the 
President, three from the list of nominees provided by the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives and three by a list of nominees provided 
by the majority leader of the Senate, both in consultation with the 
minority. Members must be residents of the District of Columbia and may 
not be Federal Government employees.
  Students whose family incomes are below the poverty line may receive 
a scholarship of up to $3,200. Students whose family incomes are above 
the poverty line but below 185 percent of that level may receive the 
lesser of 75 percent of the cost of tuition, and mandatory fees for and 
transportation to attend an eligible institution, or $2,400. Students 
receiving tutoring assistance are eligible for up to $500. Both of 
these figures are indexed for inflation.
  If there are not sufficient funds available for all of the eligible 
applicants, scholarships are to be awarded on a random basis by a 
lottery selection. The lottery is required to the extent practical to 
award an equal number of tuition scholarships and scholarships for 
fees. In other words, there will be no skimming of the green, there 
will be no biasing of the selection. If there are more scholarships 
than students, then, of course, every student would receive a 
scholarship that requested one. It is on a voluntary basis. If there 
are more students than scholarships, they will be awarded on a random 
basis. The amendment authorizes $7 million for spending in fiscal 1998 
out of the Federal contribution earmarked to repay the cumulative 
Federal fund deficit for the District of Columbia. This total is $30 
million. This $7 million earmark would leave $23 million remaining for 
that specific purpose of deficit fund reduction.

  I point out that that is above the amount recommended by the 
administration. The administration requested a total Federal 
contribution for the District of Columbia of $160 million, and the bill 
before us, the D.C. Appropriations bill, contains $190 million.
  In summary, then, we are not taking a dollar or a penny away from the 
D.C. public schools. We are not taking any money away from the current 
operating requirements of the District of Columbia that we are funding. 
In fact, we are adding $30 million for the purpose of reducing the 
general fund deficit. Of that additional $30 million, we are earmarking 
$7 million for these opportunity scholarships.
  In the interest of time, I will not continue here. I will have much 
more to say about this tomorrow. I am looking forward to offering this 
amendment, together with my counterpart, Senator Lieberman. This is a 
bipartisan effort. We are hopeful that we can begin the process of 
providing alternatives to students and their parents, who do not feel 
they are getting an adequate education. Our goal is not to undermine 
the school system of the District of Columbia; it is to improve it. Our 
goal is to move from the status quo, which is failing many, many 
students. We think this is an opportunity to do that. We look forward 
to debating this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, if the Senator from Oregon will yield, 
I would like to ask for a time agreement of 30 minutes for the 
discussion of the amendment Senator Wyden has. Is that agreeable?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is proposing a 
30-minute time agreement.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I need 30 minutes on my side.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 30 
minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to a 1-hour time limit 
equally divided?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1250

            (Purpose: To eliminate secret Senate ``holds'')

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], for himself and Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 1250.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC.   . ELIMINATING SECRET SENATE ``HOLDS.''

       (a) Standing Order.--It is a standing order of the Senate 
     that a Senator who provides notice to leadership of his or 
     her intention to object to proceeding to a motion or matter 
     shall disclose the objection (hold) in the Congressional 
     Record not later than 2 session days after the date of said 
     notice.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment today on behalf of 
myself and Senator Grassley of Iowa. Mr. President, one of the most 
significant personal powers of a U.S. Senator is the power to 
effectively block the consideration of a bill or nomination from coming 
to the floor of the U.S. Senate. This power has become known as putting 
a ``hold'' on a measure or bill that a Senator opposes. It is a power 
that a U.S. Senator can exercise in secret. The name of the Senator 
placing a hold on Senate business is now held confidentially by party 
leadership.
  This extraordinary power was once used rarely by Senators, usually as 
a matter of common courtesy. In the last 20 years, however, the hold 
has become a special tool for influence and leverage. It is especially 
valuable at this time--at a time when we are moving toward the end of 
the session--because it allows a Senator, secretly, to exercise an 
enormous amount of clout over a matter when time is short.
  Mr. President, the record is replete with statements of Members of 
this body who have indicated that there have been abuses of the hold, 
and that this is a procedure that has completely gotten out of hand. 
Let me read from the words of Senator John Glenn during the final hours 
of the 101st Congress. Senator Glenn said:

       I find it deplorable that, suddenly, anonymously, a Senator 
     or a combination of Senators on the Republican side can stand 
     against the strong desire of the President and the Office of 
     Management and Budget for this legislation.

  Lest anyone think that this be a partisan matter, Senator Thurmond 
said:

       I think abuse does arise out of that.

  Senator Hatch said:

       We get victimized by holds, especially at the end of a 
     session.

  Senator Leahy of Vermont, another senior Member said:

       There should not be any holds at all.

  He said we just should not have any holds.
  Well, I am not proposing anything like that. But I do think that 
every Member of the U.S. Senate ought to be held publicly accountable. 
I think when one Member of the U.S. Senate moves to effectively block 
the consideration of a bill or a nomination, they ought to make it 
clear to their constituents that they are the individual blocking this 
matter.
  Mr. President, as I have worked on this issue with Senator Grassley, 
on a bipartisan basis, for a year and a half, I have found that very 
few Senators are aware of how extensive some of these abuses are until 
it happens to them. For example, I learned last year that, often, a 
member of the staff places a hold on a measure and the Senator whose 
name in which the hold is placed isn't even aware of it. So what you 
have are secret holds, not just by someone with an election 
certificate, but by someone who doesn't have an election certificate at 
all--a member of the staff.
  So I believe that it is time to ensure that the rights of Senators 
and the rights under the Senate rules afford substantial opportunities 
for Senators to make sure that they are heard and, to represent their 
folks, are accompanied by responsibilities. I want to make it clear to 
each and every Senator that I, in no way, would limit the right to 
filibuster. I would, in no way, limit the right to ensure that they can 
speak at length on a motion to proceed. And, in fact, I am not even 
going so far as to put any limits on the right to place a hold on a 
measure or a matter, other than that a U.S. Senator be public about 
what they are doing.
  As I have talked about it with my constituents, they raise serious 
questions about whether one Member of the U.S. Senate should be able to 
effectively block consideration of Senate business at all. So I think 
that the

[[Page S9873]]

American people will consider this a very modest reform. I see no 
evidence that citizens want this kind of information held confidential, 
held secret. So I want to make clear to my colleagues that what I am 
against is the secrecy. It is the secrecy that is wrong, not the 
question of whether a Senator wants to exercise their rights.
  Let me also say that I think it is particularly appropriate for the 
Senate to move now. I have discussed this, over the last 15 months, on 
a number of occasions with the majority leader, Senator Lott. Senator 
Lott, to his credit, has taken several steps to improve the procedures 
of the Senate and in dealing with the holds that I think are very 
constructive. But what has not been done is there has been no change in 
the Senate rules to deal with the issue that I bring up today. A hold 
can still be kept secret. A hold can still be kept confidential with 
the party leadership.
  So, in my view, Senator Lott's proposal and the proposal that he made 
on January 27 of this year is a constructive one. It puts in place a 
number of sensible changes, such as disallowing what are known as 
``block holds,'' where a Senator would put a hold on a block of bills. 
But it still keeps this procedure and the use of one of the most 
extensive personal powers a U.S. Senator has secret. So I hope that as 
the Senate considers this legislation--and it is only one sentence 
long, it is not a complicated amendment; it is only one sentence long. 
I hope that the Senators will see this for what it is, which is to 
bring sunlight to the debate over the Senate's rules.

  I will be speaking for a few additional minutes, Mr. President, but I 
understand that the chairman of the subcommittee has asked to make a 
change in the time for the vote that he had arranged earlier. I am 
happy to yield to him at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.


    Unanimous Consent Agreement--Legislative Branch Appropriations 
                           Conference Report

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, speaking for the leader, I ask 
unanimous consent that the vote on the legislative branch 
appropriations conference report now occur at 6 o'clock today, rather 
than 5:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 1250

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this effort that Senator Grassley and I 
have pursued for many months has been endorsed by a number of groups 
that are seeking to try to make the U.S. Senate more open in the way it 
conducts its business. Common Cause, for example, is an organization 
that has sought to have public disclosure of this particular procedure.
  What we are talking about here is if a Member of the U.S. Senate is 
going to exercise this extraordinary, unilateral power, there should be 
sunshine; sunshine, we all know, is the very best disinfectant. It is 
an opportunity for all Members of the U.S. Senate to have a chance to 
be part of the debate because at least they will know who they are 
debating with. What is the most ironic part of the use of the hold is 
that the Senate, in which every Member takes pride, an institution to 
foster debate about important issues, doesn't in many instances allow 
for a Member of the U.S. Senate to even know who they are debating with 
because one Member of the Senate has anonymously blocked the issue. So 
let me be clear with respect to what this legislation does. This 
applies to a Senator who is digging in and making it clear that they 
object to a measure or a nomination.
  This is not an individual who perhaps needs to know when an amendment 
is coming up, or perhaps have an opportunity to come over to the Senate 
floor to speak on a measure or matter. That is not what is being 
discussed here. What is being discussed here is making sure that when 
there is a full court press to oppose a bill or a nomination that that 
kind of opposition be brought to light.
  We had some recent experience with how influential polls can be. For 
example, we saw that in the last Congress, to quote USA Today on the 
matter, ``A skulk of faceless Senators is using a series of 
parliamentary holds to dry gulch legislation extending health insurance 
to millions of Americans.''
  That wasn't 20 years ago. That wasn't 30 years ago. That was an 
anonymous hold that was used to influence an important piece of health 
care legislation in the last session of the U.S. Congress. The fact is, 
Mr. President, that this procedure, which was once a matter of common 
courtesy, is now so widely used that it has become one of the most 
frequent ways to prevent any public disclosure of Senate business.
  I hope that as we look to these last few days of this session--I 
bring this to the floor now because I believe that the abuse of the 
hold is most likely during these last few days of the session--that we 
take this opportunity to make the U.S. Senate more open and more 
accountable.
  Right now, if a Senator seeks to personally block a measure or 
matter, there is no cost to them. They face no disapproval because no 
one would know who they were disapproving of. The fact is that this is 
a process and a power, an enormous power, held by the U.S. Senate that 
is exercised in the dark. It seems to me that it carries the odor of 
back room deals, abuse of privilege, and a body that cares more about 
individual personal desires than those of the American people.
  This isn't cutting off the right of any Member of the U.S. Senate. 
Every Senator can still filibuster. Every Senator can still exercise 
their rights with respect to a motion to proceed. It simply says that 
it has to be done publicly.
  Let me also say that it has been the experience of Senator Grassley 
and myself that you can do this, and, as Senator Grassley has told me, 
it doesn't hurt. For example, just a week ago Senator Smith and I felt 
strongly, on a bipartisan basis, about issues with respect to a C-130 
crash that carried Oregonians who were reservists. At that time, 
because we were seeking answers from the military and given the fact 
that the appointment of the new head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was 
forthcoming, I put a hold on that nomination for a brief period of 
time. I made it clear on the floor and in other forums that I was the 
Member of the Senate who did it. I published it in the Congressional 
Record, just as my amendment calls for.
  So, during that period, there was, over a short few days, an effort 
to have a public discussion about this matter. There were also 
bipartisan discussions with Senator Thurmond and Senator McCain, and 
others were extremely helpful in the efforts that Senator Smith and I 
made on this matter. And early the next week the hold that I had, which 
was public, I lifted. The needs of my constituents were addressed, and 
the American people saw a good man--a good man--General Shelton, 
confirmed to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  So, Mr. President, what we have done, Senator Grassley and I, is we 
have practiced what we preach. We don't believe that it abridges our 
rights in any way. All we are saying is that there is no reasonable 
place for protracted ongoing anonymous delay. That is what we think is 
wrong. There is no place, as the New York Times recently said, for 
``the hold as currently practiced.''
  So I am not suggesting today, Mr. President and colleagues, that the 
hold be abolished. I am not suggesting that the filibuster be changed 
in any way. I am not suggesting that on the motion to proceed there be 
any change. All I am saying is when a hold is put on a matter so that a 
Senator digs in to personally effectively block the consideration of a 
measure or a matter, that within 2 days of that time they notify party 
leadership that they are the individual seeking to prevent 
consideration of that measure or matter on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate, and that they just put a little notice in the Congressional 
Record. No big procedure, no hassle, just a notice, just a notice 
identifying that Senator as the Senator who has put a hold on a measure 
or matter.
  Mr. President, my guess is that if my amendment passes, there may be 
a variety of ways that Senators may still seek to vitiate the spirit of 
what Senator Grassley and I are seeking to do. But I do think that 
passage of this amendment will put the U.S. Senate on record. We will 
be on record for sunshine. We will be on record as being opposed to 
secrecy, and especially we will be taking steps so that at this time of 
the session as the session moves into the last few weeks when history 
shows

[[Page S9874]]

that you are most likely to have abuses of the hold, we will have shown 
that we are willing to make changes that hold the U.S. Senate and each 
Member here publicly accountable for their actions.
  Mr. President, none of us got here easily. Like many other Senators, 
my campaign and my election was something of a trial by fire. No Member 
of this body lacks fortitude. I think we can stand some extra added 
light. I think we can stand some extra added sunshine. I think that we 
can take the secrecy out of the hold procedure and still make sure that 
each and every Senator is able to exercise their rights and protect 
their constituents.

  I believe that the passage of this amendment, at a time when millions 
of Americans are especially cynical and skeptical about Government, 
will cause citizens to say that the Senate is doing the right thing, 
and we will see constituents have a bit more respect for this body as a 
result of Senators being willing to be held publicly accountable. This 
amendment is not about getting rid of the hold. It is not about doing 
anything to a hold other than saying that a Senator has to be publicly 
accountable when that one Senator effectively moves to block the 
consideration of a bill or a nomination.
  Mr. President, I have not been here as long as some, but I read the 
statements of Senators who have been here for quite some time--Senator 
Glenn, who called it deplorable; Senator Thurmond, who said that there 
has been an abuse; Senator Hatch, who said that every Senator has been 
victimized by it; and, Senator Leahy, who went far far farther than 
anything I would be talking about. He said there shouldn't be any holds 
at all.
  In fact, in my conversations with Senators, I have been told that 
some Senators find this procedure so abhorrent that they will not 
exercise it at all, and they are especially frustrated by their 
colleagues who do.
  So, in closing, Mr. President, let me go back to just how great the 
abuse is.
  It is one thing if Chairman Faircloth or Senator Boxer or another 
Member of U.S. Senate puts a hold on a matter. All of the Senators are 
directly responsible to their constituents. What I found is a lot of 
Senators didn't even know that a hold had been placed on a bill in 
their name.
  One senior Member of the U.S. Senate came to me last session, and 
said, ``I am for your bill. I think it is a good idea. We need some 
public disclosure of these holds. And the reason I am for it is a few 
minutes ago a Senator came up to me and said, `Why do you have a hold 
on my bill?' And the person who was sympathetic to what I have been 
trying to do said, `I don't have a hold on your bill.' '' It turned out 
that a staff person had done it in their name.
  So what we have is a situation where not just are holds by Senators 
kept anonymous and kept confidential, but now we have staff that 
doesn't have an election certificate putting holds on these matters as 
well.
  The hold started out many years ago. I gather from historians that it 
is well over 100 years old. It started out as a matter of common 
courtesy. It was something that Senators did to accommodate each other 
to make sure that an individual could be present to speak on an 
amendment, to ensure that they would have an opportunity to be heard if 
they had some sort of glitch in their time schedule. That is not what 
this amendment addresses. That is not what this amendment addresses at 
all.
  This amendment is about ensuring that when a U.S. Senator uses all of 
their power, every bit of their power, to block a measure or a 
nomination, and they exercise those extraordinary rights that each of 
us has, that it be accompanied by a responsibility to the American 
people. That responsibility to the American people is to tell them, 
tell your constituents, when you exercise this extraordinary power that 
you are the one who did it. You are the one who blocked a bill or a 
nomination.
  Let's bring some sunshine here.
  I will tell leadership--let me say that Senator Daschle and Senator 
Lott have talked with me about this. Both of them have been very 
gracious. Senator Daschle indicated that he is in support of this. I 
believe that what I am proposing in this amendment complements the 
useful changes that Senator Lott, the majority leader, made this 
January.
  The majority leader, Senator Lott, implemented a number of changes 
that I think are constructive, but they still allow for the secrecy. 
They still allow for one Senator to effectively block consideration of 
a measure or matter.
  I gather that the vote on this amendment will be tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to be able, prior 
to the vote tomorrow, to speak on this amendment again for up to 10 
minutes, to be able to ensure that Senators prior to the vote----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. There is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, will the Senator from 
North Carolina be open to a question at this time?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. I am proposing that an amendment be accepted by the Senate 
that would modestly change one of a Senator's most extensive powers, 
the power to secretly block a measure or matter from coming to the 
Senate floor. Does the Senator believe that it is not appropriate to 
have 10 minutes of discussion of it tomorrow before it comes up?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. It might be all right to have 10 minutes, but we will 
have to decide it tomorrow. I am not ready now to agree to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak 
in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I will not use the full 10 minutes.

                          ____________________