[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 110 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7331-H7335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H7331]]
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4380, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 517 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 517

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4380) making appropriations for the government 
     of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
     in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XXI or section 306 or 
     401(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
     page 41, line 20, through page 42, line 2. Each of the 
     amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, may be offered only at the 
     appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against the amendments printed in the report are 
     waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1500

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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.
  Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for 
H.R. 4380, the Fiscal Year 1999 District of Columbia Appropriations 
Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XXI, requiring relevant printed 
hearings and reports to be available for 3 days prior to the 
consideration of the general appropriations bill; section 306, 
prohibiting consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction 
Committee on the Budget, unless reported by the Committee on the 
Budget; and section 401a of the Congressional Budget Act, prohibiting 
consideration of legislation, as reported, providing new contract, 
borrowing or credit authority that is not limited to the amounts 
provided in appropriation acts.
  The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized 
or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill; and clause 
6 of rule XXI, prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations 
bill, except as specified by the rule.
  The rule provides that amendments printed in the Committee on Rules 
report may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, may 
be offered only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, 
shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for a division of the question in the House or the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in 
the Committee on Rules report.
  The rule accords priority in recognition to those amendments that are 
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
  The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on 
any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in any series 
of questions is not less than 15 minutes.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  By the way, Mr. Speaker, last night the GPO accidentally omitted the 
final page of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) 
from the committee report, which was filed correctly. I believe that 
the mistake should have no effect on either the rule or the bill 
itself. I just thought I should, as a matter of courtesy, call it to 
the attention of the Members.
  This rule was crafted to avoid controversy. It is an open rule. And 
instead of self-executing legislative provisions, the rule allows for 
an open debate on four important amendments.
  Each of these four amendments is aimed at helping the youth of the 
District. They would grant scholarships to low-income students; forbid 
the publicly-funded distribution of drug needles; prohibit adoption by 
unmarried couples; and restrict the underage possession of tobacco.
  Yes, these amendments also produce spirited debate on the House 
floor. And it is fair that we have these debates.
  The Committee on Rules wisely avoided a rule that would self-execute 
controversial policy amendments.
  Meanwhile, H.R. 4380 is a good bill. My colleague, the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has crafted a D.C. Appropriations bill that 
avoids the legislative battles we have faced in the past. This year, 
both the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and 
the full Committee on Appropriations reported the bill by voice vote.
  As we all know, in the mid-1990s the District of Columbia faced a 
serious financial crisis. Decades of waste and mismanagement had led to 
chronic budget deficits and a deterioration of city services.
  Since that time, under direction of both the D.C. Control Board and 
Congress, the District of Columbia has turned itself around and now 
runs a budget surplus. H.R. 4380 reflects these changed circumstances. 
The annual Federal payment to the District is declining. This year it 
is $47 million less than last year.
  At the same time, H.R. 4380 provides important support for D.C. 
school children. The bill provides $33 million for charter schools, 
which allows parents to decide where their children attend school, as 
well as $200,000 for a program to mentor at-risk youngsters. It 
provides $156 million for special education projects, which is nearly 
twice as much as last year.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the 
underlying legislation. Both the rule and H.R. 4380 are compromise 
measures that deserve our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank my colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the time.
  This rule is an open rule. It will allow consideration of H.R. 4380, 
which is a bill that makes appropriations for the District of Columbia.
  As my colleague from North Carolina described, this rule provides for 
1 hour

[[Page H7332]]

of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule permits amendments that are in compliance with House rules 
to be offered under the 5-minute rule, which is the normal amending 
process in the House. All Members on both sides of the aisle will have 
the opportunity to offer amendments.
  Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules made in order four 
controversial amendments that would otherwise be out of order.
  One of these amendments would ban adoptions by unmarried couples. 
This amendment was considered and rejected by the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The second allows vouchers for private schools, which is a concept 
which was rejected by the citizens of Washington in a referendum.

  The third would outlaw possession of tobacco products by minors. This 
amendment denies District residences the opportunity to write their own 
tobacco laws through their own elected representatives.
  The last amendment would cut off government funding from this bill, 
for any purpose, to any individual or organization that carries out a 
needle exchange program for drug addicts. This amendment was also 
considered and rejected by the Committee on Appropriations.
  The bill that was reported out of the Committee on Appropriations was 
adopted by voice vote, with support on both sides of the aisle. It is 
far from a perfect bill. There is way too much interference in District 
affairs. Still, it is an acceptable compromise and a lot better than 
last year's bill.
  The four amendments made in order by this rule are very controversial 
and could sink the bill. Though I am not unsympathetic to the goals of 
some of the amendments, this is the wrong time and place to deal with 
these matters.
  The President has threatened to veto if some of these amendments are 
accepted. Why bother going through the bruising battle of attaching 
these amendments only to have them stripped out later in the process?
  This should not become a replay of what happened last year when 
controversial provisions insisted by the House were later removed. This 
is kind of a good-news/bad-news rule. The good news is that the rule 
could have been a lot worse. The bad news is that that is all the good 
news there is about this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in support of the rule for the District of 
Columbia Appropriations bill, and I want to encourage my colleagues to 
vote for the rule. It is an open rule.
  Even though some concern has been stated that this rule would include 
certain self-enacting provisions related to school vouchers, D.C. 
needle exchange programs, and joint adoptions, none of these provisions 
are self-enacting, in the rule. Instead, they are amendments which 
should be openly debated.
  The debate will follow with votes, and I see no reason to vote 
against this rule because of any self-enacting provisions that are not 
there. I think that the rule is fair and certainly has protected both 
sides of these issues.
  Now, during the course of our debate, we will hear objections that 
Congress should not meddle in certain home rule issues. I would just 
say first that Congress has a constitutional obligation to be involved 
in the public and financial measures of the District of Columbia.
  Time and time again, Congress has decided to set public policy and 
control financial matters in the District. In fact, in this bill it was 
the will of the House that there be no residency requirement for 
District employees.
  Now, this happens to override a local government decision. The 
decision was far from unanimous, and certainly there was dissent. But, 
nonetheless, it was the will of the committee and, therefore, the 
House. And once again, it will be confirmed in the House that we will 
set public policy for the District of Columbia.
  Probably the best analogy in government to explain this relationship 
between Congress and the District of Columbia is the relationship we 
see with the State government and that of the cities within that State. 
In my home State of Kansas, it is not uncommon for the State 
legislature to set public policy for Wichita. In fact, it is common for 
the legislature to determine tax structures, finances, and other 
issues, including the setting of public policy.
  Likewise, it is not uncommon for Congress to set public policy for 
the District of Columbia. So when we openly debate the value of a 
school voucher program, when we openly debate how the poorest of 
children will be benefitted by such a voucher program in the District; 
when we openly debate the failures of a needle exchange program, not 
only in the District of Columbia but around the globe; and when we 
advocate for the protection of adopted children, we do so with 
constitutional authority, with a relationship similar to the 
relationship between State legislatures and cities within that State, 
and we do so with the idea of establishing good public policy for the 
District.
  This is an open rule that allows for open debate. It has not embodied 
any controversial issues through a self-enacting clause. And, 
therefore, I support the rule and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor 
of this rule.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is not an outrageous rule as 
some have been, but I would rise in opposition to this rule. I can 
understand that the Committee on Rules, the majority in the Committee 
on Rules felt that it was doing the right thing in making an open rule, 
and we certainly appreciate the fact that some of these amendments will 
not self-execute, but we would have to oppose the fact that the 
amendments that really constitute poison pills to this appropriations 
act are protected in it from points of order. These amendments are 
divisive, they will invariably cause a veto, and we would suggest, as 
we will in the general debate, that they are not in the best interests 
of the District of Columbia nor are they appropriate for this Congress 
to be dealing with in terms of the local funds that ought to be at the 
discretion of the District of Columbia government.
  The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) just talked about his 
amendment dealing with needle exchanges. It is a controversial issue. 
It is one that the authorizing committee should deal with. But what is 
most objectional about this amendment is that it goes beyond the use of 
Federal funds. This amendment would say that the District of Columbia 
cannot even use its own local funds, not Federal funds, its own local 
funds nor can they use private funds that are contributed to the needle 
exchange program that the Whitman Walker Clinic operates under contract 
to the District of Columbia.
  Why do they operate this program? Looking at the statistics, they are 
shocking. In fact, the majority of new growth in HIV infections is 
women, and those women apparently are primarily infected by dirty 
needles, and, in fact, one statistic that we brought up in the full 
committee is that 97 percent of the new HIV infections among African-
Americans are occurring because of dirty needles. That is why the 
Whitman Walker Clinic contracts with the District of Columbia for the 
use of its own funds and private funds for this, and we think they 
should have that option if that is what they choose to do with those 
funds.
  We have another amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) dealing with adoptions. It says that couples 
cannot adopt unless they are in a traditional marriage situation. But 
by implication it says it is perfectly okay for people who cannot 
engage in a long-term commitment, whether it be a heterosexual or a 
homosexual commitment, single people are fully capable of adopting if 
they want, but not couples, even men and women who have lived together 
in a monogamous relationship for many years.
  Then we have another amendment that makes it a crime for a minor to 
be

[[Page H7333]]

in possession of tobacco. I do not know that we would fight that 
amendment, but it is strange that this bill had the ability to enable 
the District of Columbia to file suit against the tobacco companies 
with the other State attorneys general and yet this bill does not allow 
them to do that. That would have enabled D.C. to recover millions of 
dollars of Medicaid funds attributable to the loss of life due to 
tobacco products.
  We have an education voucher bill that has been protected. It is very 
controversial. I will not address the merits of it. I do think there is 
some merit to it. But the fact is if it were to be added to this bill, 
it kills this bill. This bill will be vetoed. Period. And so why do it 
if we know that it would kill the bill?
  We have another provision in this bill that the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) will raise and we think that 
amendment is in order. After all, the gentlewoman is the one true 
representative of the District of Columbia and she will suggest that 
funds should be able to be used if these are local funds, not Federal 
funds, for women who choose to exercise their constitutional rights to 
terminate a pregnancy.
  We have a number of controversial issues here, more than we need to 
have. The Committee on Rules could have enabled us just to talk about 
amendments that were only appropriate to an appropriations bill. It 
chose not to do that. For that reason, we would urge a ``no'' vote on 
the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we feel this is a very 
fair and open rule and none of the amendments are self-enacting. I urge 
my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding 
time. I have very mixed feelings about a rule like this. This is always 
one of the more difficult appropriation bills to come before the House. 
I would just add a few things to what has been said. If we take a look 
at what has happened over the last four years in the District of 
Columbia, it has been a great success story. We took a city four years 
ago that had no bond rating, could not sell their bonds on the 
marketplace, they were running hundreds of millions of dollars in debt, 
they had no way to try to control their expenditures, they had a rising 
crime rate, schools that had not opened on time in several years and we 
take a look at where they are today, they are running surpluses in the 
hundreds of millions of dollars, not just last year but this year and 
into the future. So they are financially stable. They are out in the 
bond markets once again.
  In enacting the D.C. Control Board bill, I think it was our vision 
that we would try to get a discussion between the Control Board, the 
Mayor and the Council to learn financial restraint, to learn to control 
expenditures and to come forward after discussions to Congress with a 
united budget. I am happy to say that with a few exceptions but for the 
most part this appropriation bill does that. This rule allows some 
extraneous things to enter into it but it allows the House a free vote 
on it, so I have very mixed feelings about the rule.
  I sympathize with my friends in the Committee on Rules who get torn 
from different constituency groups within the Congress in terms of how 
they are going to deal with it, but I look forward to a wide open 
debate on a number of issues and would just say to my friends, I think 
we can take pride in what we have accomplished in working with the 
city, with the Control Board, with the Council together over the last 
four years in hopes that whatever the outcome of this debate today, we 
can continue to look forward and work together in the years to come to 
make this the greatest city in the country.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dixon).
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DIXON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, too. But before I do, I 
would like to associate myself with the remarks from the gentleman from 
Virginia, for I feel that Dr. Brimmer, Steve Harlan, Dr. Joyce Ladner, 
Constance Newman and Edward Singletary have done an excellent job. They 
have not pleased all of us all the time. But their charge was to 
straighten out the finances of the District of Columbia, and I think 
they can hold their heads high that they have done that. We have had 
two years of a balanced budget. In the next two years I hope that they 
will continue that. These gentlemen and these ladies were uncompensated 
for this activity. Although there may be some isolated incident where 
we were not satisfied with their performance, they have done their job 
well and they should be proud of that and they have given an 
outstanding service to the District of Columbia.
  From my point of view, Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill with a bad 
rule. It waives points of order on legislation that should not be 
waived. But I think it is a sad day when the Committee on Rules and the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina comes to us and says, ``Well, it could 
have been worse. We could have self-executed these amendments so when 
you adopted the rule you adopted these amendments.''
  These amendments were defeated in the committee of jurisdiction. And 
so I do not think it is any big favor to come and say the amendments 
that were defeated on a bipartisan basis in the full Committee on 
Appropriations, we did not put those in the Committee on Rules in the 
bill.
  But let me talk about some of these amendments. The needle exchange 
program. Needle exchange is quite controversial. I think many of us 
feel that in the appropriate community they work and in other 
communities they do not work. But the point here that this amendment 
that will be offered will not only prohibit Federal money, that is 
fair, we are the Congress, as a national policy we say no Federal 
money, it will prohibit, as has been pointed out, the money of the 
District of Columbia, and any organization that receives money from the 
District of Columbia. We are going to get into a discussion about the 
merits of the needle program, and I want to just say to Members that 
most of the merits, after careful review, are on the sides of having 
those programs, and so there are going to be some statistics cited here 
and we are going to cite some statistics and the authors of the studies 
which the proponents of this amendment will quote.
  The second amendment deals with, let us face it, homosexual 
adoptions. It seems to me that we should not be interfering with the 
courts of the District of Columbia when they have decided in the 
appropriate cases that a gay couple or a lesbian couple can adopt. The 
court has not said that each one of these couples can automatically 
adopt. They say they have to look at the circumstances.

                              {time}  1530

  This amendment is ridiculous. It says the only way to have a joint 
adoption is if they are married or if they are blood related to the 
person with a joint adoption. That means that two nuns could not adopt 
anyone. That means that myself or the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton), if we wanted to share the custody of some young 
person and we were otherwise qualified, we could not do it because we 
are not married nor blood related. And this is not the appropriate 
forum to discuss what happens with adoptions in the District of 
Columbia.
  Then we have the novel idea that we are fighting the use of tobacco 
by saying there will be a civil penalty if, in fact, a person under the 
age of 18 is caught with a package of cigarettes. I guess probable 
cause to search him is the fact that he may be holding one. And it goes 
further to suggest that kids in the District would have $50 to pay for 
the first time they are caught, $100 to pay for the second time they 
are caught, and it assumes the fact that they have a driver's license 
and probably a Rolls Royce because their license would be suspended on 
the third time.
  Get real. This is not going to do anything to curb young teenagers 
from smoking, but rather a person should be referred to the juvenile 
court, and they should do what is in their best interests.

[[Page H7334]]

  Then we have fought and fought over the vouchers program time and 
time again, and we will have that fight again. I suspect that it is not 
as important to get a voucher program here in the District but, to 
those who support it, to send a signal to their constituents that they 
are still with them on this issue.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have never voted in the 18 years I have been 
here against the District bill. I believe most times that the process 
should move forward and these things should be worked out in the 
conference. But this was a bad bill coming out of committee, and we 
will talk about that. The rule makes it worse. And the adoption of any 
of these amendments makes it hideous.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleague that this is a fair 
rule, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) 
does have additional amendments printed in the Congressional Record 
that will be debated, and there may be others as well that we do not 
know about, and I would like to remind my colleagues that we will have 
very fair and open debate on this rule. So I would urge again that they 
support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I will be offering an amendment to this 
bill relative to the development of a private for-profit prison that 
exists, a contract between the District of Columbia and the City of 
Youngstown, in which six prisoners had recently escaped, four of them 
being murderers, and one murderer still on the street. The amendment 
would basically prohibit the use of funds in this bill to be used for 
transferring or confining inmates in the Youngstown facility that are 
above a medium security level risk. That is what the contract calls 
for.
  There is some concern that people have about home rule. I am worried 
about home disruption here. My community is at risk. It is not 
draconian language, and I am hoping that the language in which it is 
crafted will be allowed to be brought to this floor for a vote.
  The only other option that I have would be a pure limitation of 
restricting any and all funds in this bill to be used to transfer or 
confine prisoners in Youngstown. Then we would have one big fight, and 
if it passed, the District could only use other non-Federal revenue for 
this, and I do not want to hurt the city.
  My community is in danger. There needs to be some element of 
understanding here, and there has to be a pretty good understanding of 
Congress, with the proliferation of all these new private for-profit 
prisons, that they should have adequate training and meet at least 
minimum standards that reflect the Bureau of Prisons' ability to both 
inspect them and to ensure the respective communities that they shall 
be safe.
  So I do not want to close that prison, and I do not want to hurt the 
District. I just want to make sure that we ensure we are not going to 
be allowing prisoners such as murderers to escape. If they are to be 
medium security risks, let us make sure they are.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
this time to me.
  I rise in opposition to this rule as the neighbor of the District of 
Columbia. I represent the 4th District of Maryland. We are indeed 
neighbors, and I believe good neighbors, and we realize that this is an 
atrocious rule. It continues a pattern of interference in the 
management of the District of Columbia that is reminiscent of colonial 
days. It continues a pattern of unwarranted interference, it continues 
a pattern of experimentation, if my colleagues will, into the affairs 
of the District of Columbia that is only being exercised not because it 
is right, but because those folks on the other side can do it 
arbitrarily and capriciously.
  Specifically I turn to the prohibition against the needle exchange 
program. We need to understand one reality. We are losing the War on 
Drugs. Some folks would even go as far as to say it is a joke. But let 
me just say this:
  We need to allow the District of Columbia to try innovative 
approaches. If the citizens of the District of Columbia believe that a 
needle exchange will reduce AIDS, they ought to be able to try that, 
and Congress ought not interfere. If they believe that clean needles in 
exchange for dirty needles will reduce the spread of a deadly disease, 
they ought to be able to try that, and I have yet to hear the rationale 
for denying the citizens of the District of Columbia the opportunity to 
do that.
  Second, once again the Republicans have trotted out their old voucher 
plan, and they claim this is the solution to education problems in our 
country. They are experimenting on the District of Columbia. They want 
to take money out of public schools and send it to private schools. 
They want to allow 2,000 students to go to private schools while 75,000 
students languish in sub-par public schools.
  Yes, there are problems in the District of Columbia. There are 
infrastructure problems, there is a need for technological upgrades, 
and we ought to help the District of Columbia do that. But instead they 
want to implement a program that will basically benefit a few students, 
leaving the majority behind.
  What my colleagues have to realize about the voucher plan is private 
schools do not have to accept all students. They do not have to accept 
handicapped students, they do not have to accept unruly students, they 
do not have to accept students that bring baggage, social baggage, to 
school. Those students still have to be educated, and the District of 
Columbia will not be in as good a position to educate them because the 
Republicans want to conduct some sort of experiment.
  We need a serious approach to education. What we need to do for the 
District of Columbia and all schools in this country is provide more 
Federal assistance for the repair and maintenance of schools, for the 
technological upgrading of school systems to enable them to have access 
to the Internet. We need to pay teachers more money, we need to hire 
more teachers, we need to train teachers better so they can deal with 
our young people. We need to provide sophisticated curricula that can 
deal with the new global economy.
  There is a lot we can and should do for schools across this country. 
But certainly this so-called model of a voucher system is not the 
answer because it does not provide real assistance to the folks who 
need it.
  I strongly urge the rejection of this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I would just simply say 
before I yield back the balance of my time, as I understand, the 
District of Columbia appropriation bill as it came out of that 
committee was in decent shape. It had very good bipartisan support. And 
last night in the Committee on Rules we made in order four very 
restrictive amendments and, in some cases, very controversial.
  Many of us on the Rules Committee, at least on the Democratic side, 
feel that this will probably draw a veto from the President of the 
United States, and there is really no sense in it because this bill has 
a chance to pass by itself, on its own, probably for the first time in 
a long time. Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make

[[Page H7335]]

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 220, 
nays 204, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 406]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Clay
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Dingell
     Gonzalez
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Manton
     Packard
     Royce
     Stearns

                              {time}  1602

  Ms. DeGETTE changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________