Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 110 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 110 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7335-H7381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 517 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4380.

{time} 1604

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, we are here to present the fiscal 1999
budget for the District of Columbia. Make no mistake, this committee
and this Congress takes seriously Article 1, Section 8 of the
Constitution, and I quote, ``. . . to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over the seat of government of the United
States.''
We appreciate the work of the city in recommending a spending plan
for the National Capital. I would also like to thank the gentleman from
Louisiana (Chairman Livingston) for his support and guidance, and all
the Members of the subcommittee who have worked on this bill and, of
course, the subcommittee staff.
Mr. Chairman, last year the House passed a D.C. bill which created a
debt relief fund, and if that fund had been in place today, the
District would be in much better financial shape.
Mr. Chairman, we are recommending that we create a fund today. We are
recommending the fund would have $250 million to replace the need for
the District's seasonal borrowing, and then it would pay $43 million
that the District owes the Water and Sewer Authority. Finally, it would
retire any part of the $3.7 billion bonded debt that the surplus might
be available for.
There is no new authorization language in this bill. We have been
besieged with requests for authorizing language from a variety of
sources, frequently by some of the most ardent and vocal supporters of
the ``home rule

[[Page H7336]]

rights'' and ``regular order'' in the congressional authorizing
process. Out of respect for both home rule and the rules of the House,
our bill contains no new authorizing language.
This bill does contain a number of provisions which alternatively
direct or limit the expenditure of public funds. These provisions are
to ensure that the District Government and the Control Board clearly
understand and comply with the intent of Congress in the expenditure of
funds.
Last year, Congress made it illegal for District employees who are
not city residents to take home city cars. We found that this law was
routinely broken by city employees when a Deputy Police Chief driving a
city-owned vehicle got into an accident near his Maryland home and
filed a disability claim with the District. When the leadership of the
city's law enforcement establishment routinely flouts the law, we have
a serious problem.
Just last month the District auditor again reported on repeated and
widespread financial mismanagement. Because of that, we are concerned
about the Control Board's apparent disregard for a limitation on staff
compensation. The bill requires repayment of salary overpayments to the
Board's executive director and the Board's council which were found to
be illegal by the General Accounting Office.
This bill also requires the Board to make more complete monthly
financial reports. To ensure accuracy and independence of the annual
audit, the bill requires that the D.C. Inspector General contract for
the annual city audit, instead of the Control Board.
The bill directs the payment of invoices owed to the Boy Scouts by
the D.C. public schools. The bill makes only modest changes in the $5.2
billion budget recommended by Congress. We provide $22 million in
Federal funding to fully fund the 4,000 charter school students, as
required by the per pupil formula adopted by the District Council and
the Control Board.
Our bill fully funds the Federal activities requested by the
President. The District courts, the Corrections Trustee, and the
Offender Trustee are fully funded with Federal dollars at the levels
requested by the administration.
The bill also adds some $4 million to the Offender Trustee for the
creation of a detention center to assist in the monitoring of drug
offenders, at the request of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Additional Federal funds are provided for: $25 million for the
engineering and design for the Mount Vernon Square Metro stop; $4
million, to be matched by $3 million in private funds, for the
expansion of Boys Town in the District; $2 million, to be matched by
private funds, for the establishment of a city museum by the D.C.
Historical Society at the Carnegie library; $8.5 million to the U.S.
Park Police for the purchase of a replacement helicopter for District-
related law enforcement activities, and we certainly want to commend
the Park Police for their part in the emergency that the House has
recently had.
There is $3.3 million for a pay raise, to bring fire fighters to
parity with the police; $3 million for rehabilitation of the Washington
Marina; $250,000 for the Peoples' House Hotline and monitoring program;
$1.2 million to the Metropolitan Police Department to fund the Civilian
Review Board, at the request of the chief; $7 million for the
environmental study at the Lorton Prison site; and $21 million to the
District's infrastructure fund.
For the Record, Mr. Chairman, I include the following document:

[[Page H7337]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06AU98.001

[[Page H7338]]

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor)
for many of the provisions that are in this bill. As this D.C.
appropriations bill came through the full committee, I think it struck
a proper balance between meeting the needs of the city and respecting
the decisions of its government, and yet fulfilling our own fiscal and
legislative responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, this is never an easy bill to pass. It may be the least
consequential to some Members but it is the most consequential to the
community in which the Capitol is located. It is the smallest in dollar
amount in terms of all the appropriations bills, and yet it can be the
most contentious.
Ordinarily, the reason it is so contentious is because amendments are
attempted to be added to this appropriations bill that do not belong in
any appropriations bill, because they are designed to be divisive. I
think we have that situation today with many of the amendments that we
will be discussing. They are divisive amendments. For the most part,
these are not decisions that should be made here, but rather should be
made by the constituency that is most directly affected by the result
of those decisions; in other words, the people that live within the
District of Columbia.
I do appreciate the fact that after the subcommittee mark, a number
of changes were made to this bill that I think considerably improve
this bill. For example, in the subcommittee, while charter schools were
increased by $21 million to meet the increased demand and about 4,000
students now apparently want to attend charter schools this year, all
that money was taken out of the traditional D.C. public school system.
Mr. Chairman, that is not fair. We cannot eliminate teachers or
classrooms just because one, two, or three students leave a classroom
to go to a charter school. Some of the new charter school students are
coming from private schools. So the policy of paying for charter school
expansion by cutting the traditional public school system has been
rectified, so that in fact the D.C. public school system will get all
of its money, as will the charter school movement.
In addition, there are a number of new economic developments taking
place within the District of Columbia. This bill enhances their ability
to realize their potential.
For example, this bill includes $25 million that can be used for a
metro stop at the new civic convention center; it includes $46 million
out of the potential $75 million that the Senate had added for
infrastructure. We think $46 million should go a long ways to meeting
the infrastructure demands on the city.

{time} 1615

This bill does address the problem we have at the Lorton Reservation
in Virginia where a prison is closing down and we need to determine
what toxicity exists in the soil, what kinds of environmental cleanup
is necessary. We will have to make some changes both to the report
language and to the bill in order to do it properly. The General
Services Administration is the proper agency to conduct an
environmental assessment, so I hope that we will be able to accomplish
that on the floor today.
The amendments, though, that will probably take the most time are
ones that were meant to be divisive. For example, there will be an
amendment on needle exchanges. Nobody wants to deal with needle
exchanges. Nobody really wants to address a problem of HIV infection
that is tied to drug addiction. But the reality is that we have a
serious problem in the District of Columbia and, in fact, the new cases
of HIV infection are as a result of dirty needles, particularly among
women, particularly among the minority community. In the committee, we
fixed the problem by saying, we will not use Federal money but they can
use their local money and their private money.
I would hope that we would sustain that full Appropriations Committee
decision and reject the amendment that will be offered by the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Likewise there will be an amendment with regard to adoption. This
amendment says that if you are not in a traditional marriage
arrangement, then you cannot adopt. Yet by implication it suggests that
if you cannot engage in a long-term commitment with another adult,
whether it be heterosexual or homosexual, albeit unmarried, then you
are worthy of adopting a child. We do not think that is the kind of
thing we ought to get involved in.
There will also be an amendment on the so-called DC voucher system. I
know everyone is trying to figure out ways to improve the D.C. public
school system. If we can do that, we can go a long ways to enabling the
District of Columbia to be economically and socially self-sufficient.
But if the D.C. voucher amendment is added to this bill, we may as well
not go any further, because it is a poison pill. The President has
stated quite clearly it will be vetoed if the voucher amendment is
added. So while you may want to vote for vouchers independently, I
would suggest that it should not be added to the appropriations bill,
and so we would expect that would merit a no vote.
Now, there is another bill, there is another amendment that will be
offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton),
and I think it is a very legitimate amendment to offer. The gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) would prefer that we sustain
a provision that the D.C. government, in fact, has voted in favor of,
which would require that any new hires within the D.C. Government be
residents of the District of Columbia. The problem is that that
restricts the personnel pool from which the District can choose its new
hires, much too severely. We do not think it is in the interest of the
District of Columbia, and we would argue against that provision.
We will have other amendments dealing with the use of local funds for
abortion. Again, if we do not pass those amendments, it is going to be
severely restricting local funds. We have got another provision that
prohibits the District of Columbia government from being able to spend
their own funds on advisory neighborhood commissions. The gentleman
from California (Mr. Dixon), I trust, will address that.
This could be a long debate. I would hope throughout this debate,
though, that the Members would show sensitivity and respect for the
prerogatives of local government and in the long run what is in the
very best interest of the District of Columbia citizens. That is our
ultimate responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to announce
also that a member of our committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham), is in the hospital for surgery. The surgery was successful
and he is doing fine and we wish him well. He submitted a letter today
showing his support for the bill and his constant concern for
education, for which he has made a major contribution to this
committee. I ask that his letter be included for the Record.

Chairman Taylor: As you know, I would much rather be with
you today working on the people's business than to be where I
am now. I appreciate everyone's get well wishes, and want you
to know that I'm doing fine. I'm keeping an eye on you via C-
SPAN. And I'll be back in action very soon.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the DC Appropriations
subcommittee, I appreciate you entrusting me with the task of
working on the education provisions of the District of
Columbia Appropriations bill. This is tough work. Washington
is a world capital, but the educational opportunities for the
District's children have for years fallen far short of world-
class.
However, I am pleased to say that we are seeing real signs
of progress for the children of the District:
First, math and reading test scores are up in every grade--
not as much as we would like, but they are up.
Second, the evidence shows that the children of Washington,
D.C., want to learn. This is true of children everywhere. But
when the Washington Scholarship Fund offered 1,000
opportunity scholarships to children of low-income families
to have the same educational choice as Washington's wealthy
citizens, the Fund received over 7,000 education scholarship
applications. And this summer, some 20,000 students signed up
for summer school--many of them without having been assigned
to attend.
And third, the DC Schools new superintendent, Dr. Arlene
Ackerman, has cut bloated central office bureaucracy, and is
placing the schools' focus on the things that

[[Page H7339]]

count: teaching and learning. She's getting it done.
So we are seeing changes in the right direction--changes
that this DC Appropriations bill rewards with out support and
our confidence. This bill provides $545 million in local
funds for DC schools, which is the full funding request. And
the bill fully funds innovative public charter schools--32.6
million, sufficient for a significant increase in enrollment
and in the number of charter schools.
The House will have an additional chance to provide the
children of the district even more educational choice and
opportunity. I want to express my support for Rep. Armey's
amendment to provide opportunity scholarships for tuition and
tutoring for thousands of the district's least fortunate
young people. Last April, my Irish colleague Mr. Moran, the
subcommittee's ranking member, gave an eloquent speech for
opportunity scholarships for the District's children.
He said, ``85 percent of the children in Ward 3, the
wealthiest ward in this city, have a choice of schools, and
they choose to send their kids to private schools. Why should
the parents in other wards of the city not have the same
choice? Why should their kids suffer so because of the
accident of their birth?'' He went on to say, ``It is not
fair to deny hope to even 2,000 children. What is fair is to
support this bill.'' And I agree.
Let's give the District's children a fighting chance to
achieve the American Dream. Let's make sure they get a good
education. For the children,, and for their future, I urge my
colleagues to support the DC bill.
With warm regards,
Your wingman,
Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Member of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis), who is the authorizing chairman for D.C.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding
me the time.
This is generally one of the most controversial and contentious
appropriation bills that hits the House floor, mainly because of the
riders and the interference in local government and the strong passions
that some of the amendments evoke among Members with strong feelings on
both sides. This year's bill is no exception.
I support this bill on the theory that the longer it hangs around the
House floor, the more amendments get added, and it tends to get worse.
Traditionally, we have moved it off the House floor into conference,
worked in a collegial way, and gotten back something that works in the
interest of the District of Columbia and the entire region. I am
hopeful that that will happen in this case. I think I have assurances
that is going to happen.
Let me address some of the items in this bill that I think are
beneficial to the city and beneficial to the region. Both of my
colleagues have spoken about the $25 million for the metro improvements
at Mount Vernon Square metro. This is critical. We passed a bill out of
this House last week on unanimous consent that will allow a new
Washington Convention Center to be built downtown.
This is critical for the City of Washington for this reason: They
need a tax base. This will help revitalize the downtown and, working in
concert with the MCI Center down there, this will, I think, enliven and
revitalize the downtown area, increase taxes and job opportunities for
District residents.
There are parts of the convention authority legislation that
guarantee jobs and give incentives for jobs for District residents,
many of them unskilled, who will no longer have to be on welfare. It
will help the welfare to work, help some of them from having to commute
to the suburbs to work downtown. When it is established, I think we
will see the long-term establishment of tens of thousands of jobs
downtown, particularly in the hospitality interests. The District of
Columbia residents and the tax base and charitable organizations that
are going to benefit from that need this to happen. Without the $25
million in this particular bill, the dollars fall short. It is very
difficult for the city to come up with it. I thank the chairman for
including that in this mark of the legislation.
Seven million for environmental assessment at the Lorton complex
where the city has housed for over 75 years a correctional facility. We
know now there are severe environmental problems at the site. But we
also know that if we can get the EPA in, do the environmental
assessment, we can start the cleanup there and deal with the site. Over
the long-term that is in the best interest of the taxpayers, not just
in the District of Columbia but of the entire Nation. This is the time
to do it. This is the starting place. I thank the chairman for
including this money in the bill as well.
There are some controversial amendments in this. I want to note
early, and I will speak at the appropriate time, the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has an amendment to allow the
city to expend its own dollars for a lawsuit to help a pro bono firm
that is trying to establish what the city's voting rights are. For this
Congress, which took what little voting authority the city had away
from the city, I think we should not deprive them of the money to at
least confer with pro bono counseling to find out what their rights
are, and then this Congress can deal with it up or down. I intend to
support that.
The residency requirement is one that evokes some controversy, but I
think the city needs the best employees it can find, wherever they can
find them, and I think that the protection that is offered by the
Committee on Rules on this is important. I will speak against that at
the appropriate time.
I urge approval of this bill.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Let me begin by saying that Article I, section 8, clause 17 is
repeatedly cited as the basis for anti-democratic, authoritarian
control over the District of Columbia. Almost a century after the
Article I language was added by the framers, new language was added
that must be read in conjunction with the Article I language. It reads
as follows: No State shall deny any person within its jurisdiction
equal protection of the laws.
Legislating for District residents and overturning its laws deprives
the citizens I represent of equal protection of the laws. I ask that
out of respect for the sanctity of the Constitution, if Members insist
upon undemocratic actions, you do so in your own name, not in the name
of the Constitution of the United States.
Once again, Congress is about to engage in a game of self-torture.
For the District, this annual appropriation has become a profoundly
punitive exercise. The District appropriation bill is replete with
undemocratic interference and amendments that concern only the over
half million people who live in the District. Yet we are about to spend
hours on a city council agenda.
No serious national legislature should be voting on a residency law
for city employees or on funding for neighborhood commissions or on
funding of a voting rights lawsuit or on local tobacco legislation. Nor
should Members be dragged to the floor only for the purpose of putting
them on record on a litany of controversial amendments. Are there no
limits to political opportunism even when it hurts Members on your own
side?
Clearly there are no compunctions about hurting District residents.
The city council, the mayor and the control board have done what
Congress has urged for years. They have produced a tight, balanced
budget with a surplus. One would think that the Congress that has been
critical of the city would want to acknowledge the good work of the
control board and elected officials who have brought the District back
from the ashes of insolvency.
One would think that the Congress would say, amen, and get on with
the Nation's business. Instead, this body is treating the city today no
differently now from how the District was treated when it was at its
nadir just a couple years ago.
Is not the District entitled to deference when it submits a tough
budget that uses all of its surplus to pay down the debt?
The Congress itself has yet to be so fiscally responsible about its
finances. The District's need for investment in technology and in its
many residents who have been hurt by the financial crisis is palpable.
Yet the city has submitted a budget that puts compelling needs aside to
pay down the debt.
What is the congressional response to this fiscal responsibility? An
irresponsible set of controversial legislative ornaments that
undemocratically overturn the wishes of local residents. It is

[[Page H7340]]

time this body showed District residents the respect they are entitled
to as American citizens.
This appropriation disrespects the District's elected officials. It
disrespects Congress' own agent, the appointed control board, and it
profoundly disrespects the people I represent.
It shows hardly more respect for the Members of this body who will be
forced to vote on local trivia and controversial social issues alike,
none of them national matters. There is only one appropriate way to
respond to this appropriation. Send it back where it came from.

{time} 1630

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume to say that I do not wish to get into a long
constitutional debate with my good friend, the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Of course, in the Federalist Papers
Mr. Madison specifically addressed this at some length, about the duty
of the Congress to administer the Capital city. And he said, among
other things, ``It is the indispensable necessity of complete authority
at the seat of government that carries its own evidence.''
Each of us in the Congress have a duty to administer the budget of
the city of Washington. It is our Nation's Capital. And I would hope if
it is ever changed, it will be changed in the due course of a
constitutional amendment that would require us to do our duty within
the law.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman citing the Federalist
Papers for the proposition that the national legislature should be able
to overturn any law of a local legislature?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. No, I am pointing out that Congress had
an experience in Philadelphia where they determined as a body, and it
was enacted and in the Constitution in the beginning, deliberately
wanting to have control of the capital city. It was not a mistake. It
was not something that was meant to be abrogated by some section of the
Constitution later on. It was the deliberate intent of the framers of
the Constitution. And I say that we will have to amend that by a
constitutional amendment.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman further yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I will yield to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia one more time.
Ms. NORTON. Is it the gentleman's view that the framers intended
democracy to obtain in every other jurisdiction of the United States
except the District of Columbia because they enacted Article I?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. They certainly did. But Madison pointed
out there are situations throughout this land where the Federal
Government will have its own rules, and the capital city will be one.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) would normally be
speaking at this point, after the chairman of the committee. Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Cunningham has been immensely helpful, particularly in
the education area. He fought not just for money for charter schools
but also for the D.C. regular public education system, and so we miss
him.
He is right now in the hospital. He just had surgery, but he says he
feels like a million bucks and he will be back with us after the Labor
Day recess. But we want to recognize the fact that normally he would be
very much engaged in this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia and the
ranking member for yielding me this time.
I rise to express my pleasure at the fact that this bill, again this
year, deals with a disparity that has existed for some period of time,
which the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and I worked on, and
now the committee is continuing to work on, and I congratulate the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor), and that is the effecting of equitable pay for
the fire fighters of the District of Columbia.
For many, many years, the fire fighters of the District of Columbia
have not only received less pay than their counterparts in this region
outside of the District of Columbia, but also have been paid
disparately with respect to the police in the District of Columbia.
Indeed, the police themselves went for long periods of time with a
freeze on their pay. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and I
were concerned about that. Action has been taken, and we believe that
that has moved in the proper direction.
When we talk about police and fire in the District of Columbia, we
obviously talk about those agencies that are charged with the
protection not only of the non-Federal part of the District of Columbia
but the Federal part as well. Obviously, the Federal Government does
not have fire fighters. They are, in fact, the fire fighters of the
District of Columbia, charged with the responsibility of responding to
fires.
Most recently we saw the fire at the Longworth Building to which the
D.C. Fire Department and rescue squads responded. They did an
outstanding job. They, along with the Capitol police, ensured we exited
the building and we confronted the fire.
So that when we talk about the D.C. Fire Department, we are talking
about those individuals, those Americans who daily are called upon to
respond to emergencies of literally millions of visitors from
throughout the United States that come to this capital, visit other
monuments and office buildings around this city, and generally come to
see their capital city and to share the pride that we have in that
which it represents.
So I want to congratulate the gentleman from North Carolina and the
gentleman from Virginia for their leadership, and the gentleman from
California for his leadership over so many years, and others, as well
as Mr. Miconi, the staff member who has so ably staffed this committee
for over, I guess two decades. I am not sure, but a long time.
It is appropriate that we do this, and it is appropriate that we do
it not just for the city, though doing it for the city alone would be
appropriate, but we do it for all the citizens of the United States who
have invested much of their resources in building this capital city and
then visiting it, and these brave men and women of the D.C. Fire
Department and rescue squads who ensure their safety while visiting
here. And the fact that we are now going to pay them appropriately is a
testament to the good judgment that the committee is showing. I will
certainly enthusiastically support that and congratulate the committee
for its actions.
I want to say as well that he sits here not as the ranking member or
as the chairman, but I do not know anybody who has paid closer
attention, been more supportive, is more knowledgeable about the
District of Columbia as it relates to the Federal Government than my
friend from California, the distinguished member of this subcommittee,
but formerly the chairman for many, many, many years of this
subcommittee, under whom I had the privilege of serving for many years
on this committee. And I want to congratulate the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dixon) for all the work that he has done, and thank the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), and look forward at some future point to
discussing other aspects of this bill.
Generally, I want to say that I am a strong supporter of home rule.
And where home rule affects citizens who live in the District of
Columbia solely, I think it ought to be left to its own devices,
whether we agree or not. When it affects others, I think it is
appropriate for us to intervene, and we will discuss that at a later
time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), who is an outstanding member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for yielding
me this time, and also acknowledge that I have enjoyed working with the
ranking minority member, the gentleman from

[[Page H7341]]

Virginia (Mr. Moran). Although we occasionally do not agree, we have
had a good relationship in working together.
I think we have put together a pretty good bill here, although I hope
to amend it. I will talk about that a little later, but I am going to
vote for this bill whether I am successful in my amendment or not.
I think the District of Columbia is headed in the right direction.
The direct Federal contribution is down. The District is running a
surplus. We have certainly seen some changes that have been
dramatically positive, and I am very pleased by that.
This bill also includes repeal of the residency requirement, which I
think is good policy. It will allow the District to hire qualified
personnel to work for their police and fire departments.
It also appropriates $32.6 million for charter schools, a concept
that I think has been successful in my home city of Wichita and my home
State of Kansas, as well as here in the District of Columbia. It
provides $156 million for special education projects. It allocates $4
million in Federal funds for the Boys Town facilities in the District.
It stipulates that any excess revenues be applied to eliminating
D.C.'s accumulated deficit and creates a reserve fund to replace
seasonal borrowing, paying water and sewer fund debt, and retiring the
outstanding long-term debt.
It also requires teachers to pass competency tests in order to
receive pay raises, something that my friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Duke Cunningham), who could not be here today because
of his operation, did support.
We also have in there some small programs where we are using public
capital to help with the private initiatives. One is the People's House
Hotline. It is a small amount of money, but it is a program where we
have both the public sector and the private sector being able to come
together and provide a wonderful service to those who are truly in
need.
This hotline, which is housed in a building that was provided through
the effort of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Frank Wolf), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tony Hall), and Senator Dan Coats, connects
people with the services that are available to them. All they have to
do is call a number and there is a memory bank of nearly 4,000 social
services and churches that offer a wide variety of assistance,
including food, clothing, shelter, housing, GED courses, tutoring, a
vast array of services, and it puts them together.
They keep them on the line. When they call in, it keeps them on the
line until they are able to directly hook up with these facilities, so
that they do not get shuffled off into some pattern where they do not
get the services they so desperately need.
We also have funding for the first time that matches private sector
funds for the Mentoring Friends Program. This is a concept that was
developed with private funds in Portland, Oregon, in 1993. They
currently serve about 200 children.
This is a situation where mentors spend time with 5- and 6-year-olds.
They make a commitment to spend time with them over the next 10 years.
They are there to coordinate with their families and the schools, to
help them fight off drug abuse, to help them with any school failure,
to keep them out of gangs, to give them hope for the future.
This is one of those instances where we see something positive
happening in the District of Columbia that could spread to other
cities. Big parts of this city are in desperate need of attention, and
a macro approach has not been very effective. But here in a micro
approach, where one-on-one these kids' lives are being changed, it is
an investment in the future.
Now, I want to talk just a little bit about an amendment I am going
to offer. It is going to be an attempt to limit any funds from being
used for a needle exchange program. Currently, the Whitman Walker
Clinic has a van that drives around the D.C. area and exchanges needles
with drug abusers. Not only is that bad public policy, but the police
turn their heads. According to the office of the District of Columbia
Police Chief, Charles Ramsey, they have to turn their heads.
I just want to say the needle exchange program is spreading HIV and
we could reduce this loss of life. The police chief has to have an
unofficial policy of looking the other way when these drug addicts
approach this van because these people are doing things that are
illegal. Drug use equipment is illegal.
In his June 8th Wall Street Journal editorial, Dr. Satel, a
psychiatrist and lecturer at Yale University, said that most needle
exchange studies have been full of design errors, and that more
rigorous studies actually show there is an increase in HIV infection
among participants in the needle exchange program.
Our White House drug policy czar, General Barry McCaffrey, is opposed
to the needle exchange program.
In Vancouver, a large study was done and they found out that the
needle exchange program actually increased HIV infection among those
who are using the program. The death rate went from 18 in 1988
attributed to drugs, to more than 10 per week, 600 deaths this year
because of drug use, and it is related to the expansion of the needle
exchange program. In Montreal there was another study that said that
people are twice as likely to get infected.
So I want to support the bill, and I would like support for my
amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Julian Dixon), a man who for several
years sacrificed career opportunities, spending an extraordinary amount
of time and attention all in the interest of the people of the District
of Columbia as chairman of this D.C. Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding this
time to me, and thank him for his very fine comments, and those from
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) also.
I just want to inform the House that I am not retiring. I am looking
forward to returning here in January.
Mr. Chairman, I too would like to join and say that this is a good
bill, but this is a horrible bill.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for the chairman of this
subcommittee for many, many reasons. The chairman of this subcommittee,
unfortunately, fell on ill health, and he is a hero to me because I
know that at some point in time I will fall on ill health, and I hope I
will have the courage, the dignity, and the tenacity to fight back the
way he did.

{time} 1645

But I must say that there is a chill in this bill. My colleagues will
hear the chairman say, and he has said on the floor today, that he has
left basically intact the D.C. budget, as he should. It was proposed by
the mayor, scrubbed by the City Council, and rescrubbed by the agency
that we delegated, that is the Financial Control Board, to deal with
this budget.
But another issue that the chairman raised, and that is that two of
the employees of the Financial Control Board, the executive director
and legal counsel, he is, in this bill, repealing a pay raise that they
received and causing them to return some $20,000.
Now, at first blush, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) might
think this is inappropriate. But I want him to listen to me for a
second.
In April of last year, the chairman of the committee asked GAO to
take a look at some pay raises. And, in fact, the GAO looked at four
individuals under the jurisdiction of the Control Board. And they came
to the conclusion, which, by the way, I disagree with, I think that
reasonable people could argue about the merits of the GAO conclusion,
but they came to the conclusion that all four of the pay raises were
inappropriately given.
There will be no dispute about that. When the chairman gets up to
rebut me, listen to see if he says I am wrong on the number and what
was said. All four of the GAO analyses said the pay raises were
inappropriate. Why is it mean-spirited? Because the chairman has
reached in and singled out two of these people to give back the money.
Now, the chairman in the Committee on Rules yesterday said, well, he
could not reach the other two. For some reason, I did not understand.
So I went back and I looked at the GAO report again. And it says on
page 11, it is referring to the third and fourth persons, ``Since the
Authority's budget currently is under review, the appropriations
process for Fiscal Year 1999 provides an opportunity for Congress to

[[Page H7342]]

consider whether the appointment of the Chief Management Officer, with
pay and benefits in excess of the limitation provided in section 102 of
this act, is desirable and, if so, to enact additional legislation to
specifically so provide.''
Well, the clear meaning of that language is that the GAO did not
think the document that he relies on, did not think that it was beyond
their authority to reach the Chief Management Officer. That is mean-
spirited.
I do not think any of us would like to go home and feel that, well,
we got two people who were doing a good job, there is some controversy
about that, that we reached in and that we take off four of them and
repeal their raise, obviously two are in favor and the other two are in
disfavor. That is mean-spirited.
The second issue I want to talk about that is mean spirit in this
bill, before we ever get to the amendments, we have in Washington D.C.
what is called Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. Many jurisdictions
may be familiar. The concept is that, at some very local level, that
people will have an opportunity through an election to participate in a
council at the neighborhood level.
Washington D.C. has some 37 of these. The budget contained $546,000
for allowances for these ANCs to operate. If we figure it out, it is
about $15,000 or $16,000 per year for each one. Some of them rent a
store front for an office. Some use it for beautification, Neighborhood
Watch, and what have you.
It has been called to our attention through the press that two
wrongdoers, two wrongdoers in two of these associations had, let us
say, stolen money. They were convicted in a court of law and they have
paid their penalty.
What is the remedy of the chairman for this? He zeros out all of the
funds for the 37 advisory councils. That is mean-spirited.
These councils have people in various parts of this District that
have some pride in their community and participation in government. And
because two out of 300 act inappropriately and pay the penalty, we do
not like the ANCs, we will zero them out.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this is a good bill.
My colleagues have not reached into the structure of D.C. and
rearranged the chairs on the Titanic. But rather, they have taken a
thin pin and reached the heart of home rule. So the carcass, the
anatomy is in shape, but they have sure gotten the patient with the
shock and taken away what limited authority they have to exercise their
own judgment and their own government prerogatives.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) who is a member of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, first, I do chair the Subcommittee on Civil
Service. And the gentleman has referenced me, and I have always in my
position tried to be very evenhanded and fair. The gentleman does point
out that there may be some inequities and that some people may have
been singled out. And if that has happened, I commit to him to make
certain that we are fair, that we are evenhanded, and that we will
reconsider that matter and those affected individuals because we are
trying to be fair.
I did not come really to speak just on that particular issue that was
raised, but I came to speak because I heard earlier in the rule debate
criticism of some of the reforms that our side of the aisle, that the
Republican new majority, has instituted and provided for in this bill
funding the District activities.
Let me say I cannot think of any other example in which we have a
greater responsibility. The District is not a State. The District is in
our care under the Constitution and laws. And this District is made up
of tens of thousands of hard-working men and women who are trying to
make a living, raise their children, get an education, and participate
in our society, and we need to do everything we can to make certain
that they get a fair opportunity.
But I can tell my colleagues, I have never seen a greater example of
big government gone wrong than the District of Columbia.
I was dismayed when I heard the criticism of what we were doing here.
It is not unfair, it is not harsh. Let me tell my colleagues what we
inherited some 40 months ago after 40 years of rule from the other
side. I heard criticism of our drug proposals and our school proposals.
We inherited a disaster here. The deaths in this District of Columbia
of males between the age of 14 to 40 are a national shame. I have been
coming to this city for the past 18 years; and year after year, the
slaughter every week, every weekend, should offend every D.C. resident,
every citizen of this country.
So, yes, we will make some changes, and we have made some changes.
Whether we want the Barry plan or the Giuliani plan, we are going to
have a different set of rules when it comes to the conduct of drug
programs in the District of Columbia. We have also responsibility; for
schools, where they have spent more money than almost any district and
had some of the lowest scores, highest dropout rates. My colleagues
would not send their student or their children there.
So, yes, we have proposed some changes. Job training programs we
looked at where the money went for administration and no one got a job,
with one of the highest unemployment and welfare roles in the Nation.
Yes, we have a responsibility. The Housing Authority I saw recently
portrayed on television. My colleagues would not put their dog in the
Housing Authority projects that they let go. So, yes, we have proposed
some tough love and some changes. But even the water system was broken.
The morgue. The morgue was broken down even the hospitals.
I remember a story several years ago about emergency medical service.
They said if they ordered a pizza and they called EMS, they might get
the pizza faster than they got emergency medical service in the
District of Columbia. It would almost be a joke if it was not so sad.
It would almost be a joke if it did not affect the people of this
District that are trying to live and to make this their home.
My colleagues, we have only had responsibility for 40 months. They
have had responsibility for 40 years. These are God's people, and these
are our charge under the Constitution and law.
What we need to do is take the District from the Nation's shame to
the Nation's pride. This is our Nation's Capital. And that is what we
propose.
I never thought I would be here promoting an appropriations measure
after I saw billions of dollars wastefully in the past put into the
District of Columbia. But, yes, the reforms that we are asking for here
may be tough love, but these people deserve that love, they deserve
that attention, they deserve that opportunity that has been neglected.
They had their 40 years. We have had our 40 months. These reforms, my
colleagues, are long overdue. I urge everyone to come down here and
support this legislation, this appropriations measure.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, one of the greatest reforms Congress
could make would probably would be to grant statehood to the citizens
of D.C. There are more taxpayers in the District than in some of our
States. I do not want to get off on that subject.
But there are a couple things I want to say here because I have an
amendment and this amendment has been worked out, and I want to thank
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), maybe one
of the best representatives in the country. And I thank her because I
know she is a bulldog in taking care of her constituents, and I
appreciate it.
I want to discuss what my amendment will do and what it will not do.
It will not demean D.C. and does not attempt to close the prison or to
slam D.C. at all.
D.C. closed Lorton. They had a problem. They had to do something with
their prisoners. The country was wide open; and my district, desperate
for jobs, signed a contract, and the district has lived up to their
commitment. The question is, are we getting and have we been getting
medium security level risks?
To clarify and codify, my amendment will state that none of the funds
in the bill can be used to transfer or confine

[[Page H7343]]

inmates in that Youngstown private, for-profit prison that are above
the medium security level. And we will use the Federal Bureau of
Prisons standards to make such determination.

{time} 1700

But what I am saying to the Congress has nothing to do with D.C. at
this point. There is a tremendous development around the Nation of
private for-profit prisons. And this whole system now is going to have
to look for some uniformity, some standards, to ensure adequate staffs
and training. So this is not an indictment of D.C. at all. I want to
make sure that private for-profit prison lives up to the contract they
have with the District, because the District has placed it on the line,
signed a contract, and I just want to make sure it is right. So I am
not trying to close our prison. There are some politicians jumping all
over this. But I want it to be safe. I want my community to be safe.
And I want us to ensure, since we do have an obligatory responsibility
with D.C. under current law that we ensure that every opportunity to
protect both D.C. and my district is taken care of and that there would
be a limited reaction and potential for these types of problems to
develop somewhere else. It is a good learning experience for us, so I
thank the committee for listening to my plight and for helping with my
concern.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) from the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my very good friend and my
classmate for yielding me this time because I know he has done once
again yeoman's work in producing this bill. It is a bill that while it
has some issues that pretty much divide the parties along party lines,
on partisan terms, I think should be very strongly supported.
First of all, let me tell my colleagues I support the provision that
is in the bill that would prohibit Federal money from being spent on
needle exchange programs but believe we should go one step further and
adopt the Tiahrt amendment because that would extend or broaden that
provision to include District money, which after all is money that is
subject to reappropriation by the Congress. I cannot believe that this
body would seriously consider sanctioning legal needle exchange. I
cannot believe that by inference we are willing to go on record as
supporting illegal drug use, or drug abuse. I cannot believe that we
would seriously consider a provision in the D.C. appropriations bill
that would actually encourage addiction and chemical dependency. I am
amazed that we can have this debate in the People's House and actually
get off on these tangents where we buy into this sort of fuzzyheaded
liberal thinking that to stand up and take a position on principle
opposing these provisions somehow contradicts the Constitution or the
notion of home rule for the District of Columbia. Look at what Mayor
Giuliani is talking about doing in New York City. He is talking about
eliminating the methadone program there. Yes, I think he calls it tough
love. But we need, I think, to send that signal, that we will and we
are willing to take a position based on principle and, yes, tough love.
I also want to speak to the other provision that would continue the
annual prohibition on using Federal or District-related funding to
implement programs that extend the same rights as married couples to
cohabitating unmarried couples, such as domestic partners. I support
this provision. I support the provision by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Largent) that would prohibit joint adoptions in the District of
Columbia by persons who are not related by blood or marriage. Let me
tell you again why, as clearly as I can. I think we as Federal
lawmakers have a duty to oppose policies and laws that confer partner
benefits or marital status on same-sex couples. The reason for that is
very clear. First, to support those kind of policies sends a signal to
local governments, it sends a signal to private sector companies that
marriage no longer be considered a priority in making policies and
laws, that marriage should not be a priority to be encouraged above all
other relationships. Secondly, it would deny, I think, the clear
imperative of procreation that underlies any society's traditional
protection of marriage and family as the best environment in which to
raise children. Lastly, I think it is wrong, again fuzzyheaded, on the
part of those who would seek to legitimize same-sex activity and the
claim by homosexuals that they should be able to adopt children,
because there is, I think, clear evidence that that presents a danger
to the child's development or to children's development of healthy
sexual identities.
I hope that we will stand very firm on these provisions. I know that
a little later today we are going to get caught up in the great haste
to adjourn for the traditional congressional summer recess or district
work period, but I think these provisions deserve full and ample
debate. I do want to salute the gentleman for what he and other members
of the committee, I assume the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran),
certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who has been
mentioned here today, have done in the area of education, promoting
increased funding but coupling that with greater accountability for the
District of Columbia public schools. I think it bears note that the
subcommittee has decided to increase funding substantially above last
year and even above the District's own budget request this year, but
has coupled that to reforms that would require that in order to receive
pay raises, no school administrators or teachers can falsify attendance
or enrollment and require that all teachers must pass competency tests.
I also salute the gentlemen for what they have done to promote
greater school choice for parents in the District of Columbia. I will
have more to say on that later as we discuss the Armey proposal, but
the bottom line is that if you look at the increased funding for
charter schools, if you look at what the Armey proposal would do, we
have a potential here to provide greater parental choice for parents of
almost 8,400 children, giving those parents more choice where their
children go to school and encouraging hopefully better educational
results and a brighter future for those children.
Again I salute the gentlemen for what they have done in the area of
educational accountability and reform.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from
California indicated the mean-spiritedness of this bill, but the last
speaker from California really laid out the Republicans' plan for going
home with a message to the American people, and it is mean-spirited all
the way down the line. The amendments that are laid out are directed at
specific groups to come out here and have a one last bash before we go
home. In my view, that is not the way we should be treating the capital
of the United States. If you really consider, are worried about this
city and what has gone on here, these amendments all ought to be
rejected. We ought to let the city deal with the problems.
Now, I will say some more things as we get to this needle exchange
question, but if you look at that issue and ask yourself when the
leading cause of death among African-American women in this country
between the ages of 15 and 45 is AIDS, and then you do not want to use
every possible means to protect people, including needle exchange,
which has been successful in Seattle and San Francisco and a variety of
other cities in this country, you simply are being mean-spirited to the
people of this city. You do not care about the women of this city.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
In this year's bill we have appropriated $500 million more to the
city than was appropriated last year. So we have not denied this city
financially. It has always been a question of management, not money. In
fact, every day you read about mismanagement in this city. In today's
newspapers there was an article about $11,376 used over a two-month
period by the Child Welfare Department for sex calls. The article was
printed in this morning's papers.

[[Page H7344]]

Every day there is mismanagement pointed up in the press. It is not a
question of money. It has been a question of discipline, of obeying the
law and of moving forward. We have tried to put all of this together,
adequate funds with adequate discipline. We hope this body will vote
for this bill.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mrs.
Norton's amendment to allow the District of Columbia to use its own
locally raised revenue to provide abortion services for poor women.
Mr. Speaker, I'd like to put this vote in perspective. This is the
96th vote on choice since the Republican majority came to power in
1995. And they've been successful in restricting abortions for many
women--women in the military, poor women on Medicaid, federal
employees, women in the Peace Corps, and women in federal prisons.
Today, I stand with Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton to stop this House
from trampling on the rights of women in the District of Columbia.
Prohibiting the District of Columbia from using its own locally-raised
funds to provide abortion services is misguided and unfair. It is bad
enough that D.C. residents are not allowed a voting representative in
this House. This provision is a second slap in the face to all D.C.
women.
I believe it is highly unfair that the District of Columbia is
singled out in this way. In New York State, where I represent, we
provide funding for poor women to obtain abortions. Why should the
federal government step in to restrict abortion for poor women in D.C.?
Especially since we're talking about their own locally raised revenue.
It is simply unfair, and I urge my colleagues to support Mrs. Norton in
her efforts to delete this misguided provision.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that each state may use its own
revenue to provide abortions to poor women. Unfortunately, because D.C.
residents are not treated as all other citizens are, they are doubly
penalized by measures such as this one.
We should really be working to eliminate the Hyde restrictions on the
use of federal funds for abortion. But this amendment doesn't even go
that far. It simply brings the District in line with the 50 states
where the decision to use locally raised revenue for such a purpose is
constitutionally protected.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Armey ``Private
School Vouchers for DC'' amendment. This measure would assist only 3
percent of the District's school population. It would do nothing to
address the critical needs within the District's public schools such as
the need to: Increase academic standards, reduce class size or
modernize school facilities.
Previous attempts by Congress to enact legislation that would provide
for private school vouchers in the District of Columbia have failed.
And, the President has indicated that he will veto H.R. 4308 if an
amendment to provide for the use of such vouchers in the District is
adopted.
I do not support drastic initiatives that drain critical financial
resources from our Nation's public schools. And that is exactly what
school vouchers do.
The city of Cleveland has had a crash course in school vouchers. And,
we have learned--the hard way--that education vouchers programs are
expensive, they do not work. It is well known that the Cleveland
Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Program has provided little benefit to
the low-income students it was intended to reach. In fact, a recently
released independent audit and an evaluation of the Cleveland
Scholarship and Tutoring Grant Program shows that: This program has
attracted better achieving students away from the Cleveland public
schools; there are not significant differences in third-grade
achievement between voucher students and their Cleveland city shool
district peers; and the large number of private and parochial schools
participating in the program make it very difficult to monitor the
quality of education that voucher students receive.
The actual benefit to low-income Cleveland city school students is
even more questionable as 45 percent of the scholarship students in
grades 1-3, had already been enrolled in private school prior to being
awarded a scholarship.
Supporters of school vouchers claim that vouchers would infuse much
needed competition into the school system and end the problems of poor
management, inadequate facilities and bad teachers because low-income
families would choose to send their children to better schools. They
are completely wrong.
School voucher supporters also believe that voucher programs ensure
safer schools. They may, but only for a select few students. If we want
to make our public schools safer, we must look at common-sense
solutions that our young people need in order to learn, succeed and be
safe. Such efforts range from proven academic programs with high
standards for conduct and achievement to high-quality summer programs
and activities that encourage students to stay engaged in the learning
process throughout the summer months.
Vouchers are not the silver bullet for what ails our Nation's public
schools. They merely offer empty promises to low-income students that
deserve a much more substantial commitment to their education. Our
children need us to make real investments in public education. Given
limited resources, our scarce taxpayer dollars should be used to lower
class size. This is a proven, cost effective means of promoting student
academic achievement.
I strongly believe that we have a moral obligation to ensure that
every boy and girl has equal access to quality education. Public
education was intended to provide a level playing field for all
Americans, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Unfortunately for
many, it does not. School voucher programs, however, are not the answer
to this problem. We cannot afford to abandon our Nation's beleaguered
public schools for costly, ineffective initiatives. Rather, it is
absolutely critical that we focus our attention and resources on
strengthening and improving them.
It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting ``no'' on the Army ``Private School Vouchers For DC'' Amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member is pleased to support H.R.
4380, the fiscal year 1999 District of Columbia Appropriations. This
Member also wishes to thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Livingston), the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the Chairman
of the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, as well as the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Ranking Member of the
Appropriations Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran), the Ranking Member of the D.C. Appropriations
Subcommittee, for including an appropriation of 4 million dollars for
the Washington, DC Boys Town Facility.
As you may know, Father Flanagan founded Boys Town in 1917 to provide
care to homeless, abandoned boys in the Omaha, Nebraska, area. Since
then, Boys Town has taken its successful formula of helping troubled
and needy children to all party of the country, including Washington,
DC. The DC facility opened its doors in 1993, and since then has served
hundreds of boys and girls through its short-term emergency shelter,
Common Sense Parenting program, recruiting and training foster parents,
and by providing long-term residential homes for at-risk youth. The
Boys Town method of providing education and care to children had been a
proven success nationwide and in the Washington, DC, area, but more
help is needed. Because of the large demand in this area, and because
other local shelters have recently closed their doors, Boys Town is
expanding its DC service to provide assistance to more children who
will be able to receive this greatly needed help.
The generous amount provided in this appropriations bill will help
Boys Town begin to give hundreds of DC children the opportunity to
experience a stable, home-like atmosphere where they can learn and
prosper. Again, this Member thanks the Chairmen and Ranking Members, as
well as all of the members of the Appropriations Committee, for
providing Boys Town with these greatly-needed funds.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendments printed in House Report 105-679 may be offered only by
a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill, shall be considered 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.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of
Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and
for other purposes, namely:

[[Page H7345]]

FEDERAL FUNDS

Metrorail Improvements and Expansion

For a Federal contribution to the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority for improvements and expansion of the
Mount Vernon Square Metrorail station located at the site of
the proposed Washington Convention Center project,
$25,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Nation's Capital Infrastructure Fund

For a Federal contribution to the District of Columbia
towards the costs of infrastructure needs, which shall be
deposited into an escrow account of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
and disbursed by the Authority from such account for the
repair and maintenance of roads, highways, bridges, and
transit in the District of Columbia, $21,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Environmental Study and Related Activities at Lorton Correctional
Complex

For a Federal contribution for an environmental study and
related activities at the Lorton Correctional Complex, to be
transferred to the Federal agency with authority over the
Complex, $7,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
Page 2, line 23, strike ``Lorton Correctional Complex'' and
insert ``property on which the Lorton Correctional Complex is
located''.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is simply a technical
perfecting amendment. The language says Lorton Correctional Complex,
which would refer to the facility. We want the environmental study done
of the property on which the facility is located. We do not want to
spend $7 million to sweep the floors within the prison. We want to
determine what toxins might exist around the complex. Obviously most of
the toxins were dumped out of the prison, they are throughout the
property on which the prison facility is located. I have to say that
this would not have been necessary but for the fact that we only got
this bill language yesterday morning. As a result, we were only able to
look through the bill at the last minute. I would expect that this
would not be a problem, that we can clarify it. I cannot imagine why it
would be controversial.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Is it not a fact that there have been
environmental cleanups and pipes breaking well off the correctional
facility property, that have in fact leaked into the Occoquan River
that flows through there and has polluted that water and there have
been in fact many lawsuits against the city of the District of Columbia
for these and these are well off the prison complex reservation itself?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Taking back my time, the gentleman is
absolutely correct. There is an aquifer that runs under the complex.
That is why if the language is as restrictive as is stated in the bill,
then we really do not accomplish the objective of determining what the
cost of a complete environmental cleanup would be. I am glad the chair
of the authorizing committee is familiar with the situation as he
obviously is and understands the necessity of perfecting this language
so that it can accomplish its objective.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Is it not also a fact that to actually dispose
of this property, the GSA or the Department of Interior or whatever
Federal agency would be given that task, that they would need to know
what those environmental cleanup costs are before they could dispose of
it to anyone?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is
absolutely correct. We did attempt to put further language in this
bill. I think it should have been included, obviously, that could have
facilitated the transfer from the Department of Interior to the General
Services Administration. They made the estimate of $7 million as to
what would be necessary to do the environmental assessment and other
related activities. I would hope that perhaps in conference we could
take care of that.

{time} 1715

But without this clarifying language then the $7 million is not of
any real use because it is only confined to the facility. I appreciate
the gentleman's comments though.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to object to the amendment at this time,
I am not going to object to this language at this time. The gentleman
came to me for a $7 million study for the EPA to determine the extent
of the environmental pollution at Lorton. We put that together and
submitted the language to the gentleman as quickly as we could, and the
gentleman stated through the staff, that the report language regarding
those funds was adequate.
Now, as the gentleman knows, there are a number of attempts to use
this appropriations bill to remove the Lorton prison from the rightful
control of the Department of Interior and to make transfers for the
land, either part or all of it, without compensation to the city of
D.C. which has a $3.7 billion debt unwritten by the American taxpayer,
and the thought is to pass it to northern Virginia.
Now I am sure the gentleman would agree that the authorizing
committee of jurisdiction should deal with these issues and the entire
Congress should be apprised as to what disposal is made of that money,
and I would hate to think that it would be taken away from the District
of Columbia to go to a park in northern Virginia.
I can only say that there are a number of Democrats and a number of
Republicans who have expressed concern about this transfer if it should
happen, and I have reason to believe that it might. One Member of
Congress in northern Virginia stated in a statement that was sent out
by hundreds of thousands of leaflets: My preference is to devote a
substantial amount of this property; that is, these 3,000 acres of
Lorton prison, to the Northern Virginia Park Authority, to provide for
a quality affordable golf course and some other things.
Now this is one of the most wealthy parts of the State of Virginia,
and I would hate to see the people of D.C. deprived of the money or the
exchange of this property and realize nothing.
I would also point out some nine pages have been presented to the
Committee on Rules that would have set the matter up for transfer under
the General Services Administration of any property on which the Lorton
Correction Complex shall be transferred, to the Northern Virginia
Recreation Park Authority.
Now what I am saying is I will not object to the gentleman's
amendment, but I will fight very strongly in conference any attempt to
change language that would allow this property to be taken away from
the people of this Nation and the people of DC without any compensation
or recognition without the full understanding and agreement by this
body.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the
ranking member of the committee.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the
chairman of the committee that the D.C. Revitalization Act transferred
this property to the Federal Government, the Department of Interior.
So, it is not the citizens of the District of Columbia now that are
responsible for it, but the Department of the Interior recognizes it
does not have the resources, nor the will, to maintain this property,
and thus it is at their request that it is the General Services
Administration that would assume responsibility for the property as
well as the environmental assessment and subsequent clean up.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all the Northern
Virginia Regional Park Authority right now has 150 acres of leased land
from the Lorton complex. It is not city property, it is Federal
property; I think we need to understand that. If and when the property
is sold, I think at that point it would be appropriate to determine if
the city should receive any of those proceeds, and I think hopefully
the whole body would be involved with that at this time.
But it is noted that I am not going to elaborate on this except to
say the

[[Page H7346]]

Chairman has said he will accept this amendment. I think that is in
good faith, and we can deal with some of these other authorizing issues
later.
But I want to note that the White House, the Department of Interior
and GSA all agree that the Department of Interior, who this land is
conveyed to at this point, is not the appropriate agency at this point
to make the environmental assessment and later to decide how that land
should be sold, divided, developed, discarded or whatever, and it is
only for that reason that we have asked ultimately that GSA make those
determinations. They are the appropriate Federal agencies that would do
that.
I do not know of any other conspiracy or news letters except to say
on a personal basis I do not favor massive development at that site.
Anyone who has driven down that I-395 corridor during rush hour knows
that the infusion of thousands and thousands and thousands of more cars
is not an appropriate use.
But I think at this point that is not the purpose of this amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to get the environmental costs
so that the GSA can go about their job, make the appropriate
environmental evaluation, and we can move ahead and work with the
chairman and others to decide what should happen from there.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Offender Supervision, Defender, and Court Services Agency

For a Federal contribution for the District of Columbia
Offender Supervision, Defender, and Court Services Agency for
establishment of a residential sanctions center and drug
testing, intervention, and treatment, to be used to ensure
adequate response to persons who violate conditions of
supervision and to implement recommendations of the District
of Columbia Truth-in-Sentencing Commission, $4,000,000.

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee
Operations

For payment to the District of Columbia Corrections
Trustee, $184,800,000 for the administration and operation of
correctional facilities and for the administrative operating
costs of the Office of the Corrections Trustee, as authorized
by section 11202 of the National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33.

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, $142,000,000
for payment to the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration
in the District of Columbia; of which not to exceed
$121,000,000 shall be for District of Columbia Courts
operation, and not to exceed $21,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2001, shall be for capital improvements
for District of Columbia courthouse facilities: Provided,
That said sums shall be paid quarterly by the Treasury of the
United States based on quarterly apportionments approved by
the Office of Management and Budget, with payroll and
financial services to be provided on a contractual basis with
the General Services Administration, said services to include
the preparation and submission of monthly financial reports
to the President and the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and House of Representatives, the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of
Representatives.

District of Columbia Offender Supervision, Defender, and Court Services
Agency

For payment to the District of Columbia Offender
Supervision, Defender, and Court Services Agency,
$59,400,000, as authorized by the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997,
Public Law 105-33; of which $33,802,000 shall be for
necessary expenses of Parole Revocation, Adult Probation and
Offender Supervision; $14,486,000 shall be available to the
Public Defender Service; and $11,112,000 shall be available
to the Pretrial Services Agency.

Federal Payment for Metropolitan Police Department

For payment to the Metropolitan Police Department,
$1,200,000, for the administration and operating costs of the
Citizen Complaint Review Office.

Federal Payment for Fire Department

For payment to the Fire Department, $3,240,000, for a 5.5
percent pay increase to be effective and paid to firefighters
beginning October 1, 1998.

Federal Payment for Boys Town U.S.A.

For a Federal contribution to the Board of Trustees of Boys
Town U.S.A. for expansion of the operations of Boys Town of
Washington, located at 4801 Sargent Road, Northeast,
$4,000,000, to remain available until expended, to be paid
upon certification by the Inspector General of the District
of Columbia that $3,100,000 in matching funds from private
contributions have been collected by Boys Town of Washington.

Federal Payment to Historical Society for City Museum

For a Federal payment to the Historical Society of
Washington, D.C., for the establishment and operation of a
Museum of the City of Washington, D.C. at the Carnegie
Library at Mount Vernon Square, $2,000,000, to remain
available until expended, to be deposited in a separate
account of the Society used exclusively for the establishment
and operation of such Museum: Provided, That the Secretary of
the Treasury shall make such payment in quarterly
installments, and the amount of the installment for a quarter
shall be equal to the amount of matching funds that the
Society has deposited into such account for the quarter (as
certified by the Inspector General of the District of
Columbia): Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, not later than January 1, 1999, the
District of Columbia shall enter into an agreement with the
Society under which the District of Columbia shall lease the
Carnegie Library at Mount Vernon Square to the Society
beginning on such date for 99 years at a rent of $1 per year
for use as a city museum.

United States Park Police

For a Federal payment to the United States Park Police,
$8,500,000, to acquire, modify and operate a helicopter and
to make necessary capital expenditures to the Park Police
aviation unit base.

Federal Payment for Waterfront Improvements

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia
Department of Housing and Community Development for a study
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of necessary improvements
to the Southwest Waterfront in the District of Columbia
(including upgrading marina dock pilings and paving and
restoring walkways in the marina and fish market areas) for
the portions of Federal property in the Southwest quadrant of
the District of Columbia that consist of Lots 847 and 848, a
portion of Lot 846, and the unassessed Federal real property
adjacent to Lot 848 in Square 473, and for carrying out the
improvements recommended by the study, $3,000,000: Provided,
That no portion of such funds shall be available to the
District of Columbia for carrying out such improvements
unless the District of Columbia executes a 30-year lease with
the existing lessees, or with their successors in interest,
of such portions of property not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.

Federal Payment for Mentoring Services

For a Federal payment to the International Youth Service
and Development Corps, Inc. for a mentoring program for at-
risk children in the District of Columbia, $200,000:
Provided, That the International Youth Service and
Development Corps, Inc. shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
an annual report on the activities carried out with such
funds due November 30 of each year.

Federal Payment for Hotline Services

For a Federal payment to the International Youth Service
and Development Corps, Inc. for the operation of a resource
hotline for low-income individuals in the District of
Columbia, $50,000: Provided, That the International Youth
Service and Development Corps, Inc. shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate an annual report on the activities carried out
with such funds due November 30 of each year.

Federal Payment for Public Education

For a Federal contribution to the public education system
for public charter schools, $20,391,000.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

OPERATING EXPENSES

Division of Expenses

The following amounts are appropriated for the District of
Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund
of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically
provided.

Governmental Direction and Support

Governmental direction and support, $164,144,000 (including
$136,485,000 from local funds, $13,955,000 from Federal
funds, and $13,704,000 from other funds): Provided, That not
to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of
the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the
Chief Management Officer shall be available from this
appropriation for official purposes: Provided further, That
any program fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be
available for the payment of expenses of the debt management
program of the District of Columbia: Provided further, That
no revenues from Federal sources shall be used to support the
operations or activities of the Statehood Commission and
Statehood Compact Commission: Provided further, That the
District of Columbia shall identify the sources of funding
for Admission to Statehood from its own locally-generated
revenues: Provided further, That all employees permanently
assigned to work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid
from funds allocated to the Office of the Mayor.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Norton

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page H7347]]

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Norton:
Page 8, line 22, insert ``(increased by $573,000)'' after
``$164,144,000''.
Page 8, line 23, insert ``(increased by $573,000)'' after
``$136,485,000''.
Page 9, line 4, insert after ``purposes:'' the following:
``Provided further, That $573,000 of such amount shall be for
Advisory Neighborhood Commissions established pursuant to
section 738 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act''.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask that $570,000 in local funds be
restored to the advisory neighborhood commissions. These neighborhood
elected bodies were included in the original Home Rule Charter to allow
residents at the block and neighborhood level participation that would
otherwise be unavailable to them.
ANCs keep neighborhoods from being overloaded with liquor stores and
porno shops and from being disproportionately affected by transfer
stations or illegal dumping. ANCs keep parks from becoming open-air
drug markets, and the Anacostia River from being polluted by people who
dump refrigerators and contaminated waste.
ANCs assure community comment and feedback on matters such as the
placement of facilities and thus save the central government from
making many mistakes.
No government agency could possibly monitor daily the minutia of
neighborhood life and ensure rapid responses to neighborhood needs.
Without the ANCs, the District's huge loss of population would have
been far greater. The almost 300 unpaid commissioners achieve what it
would take a legion of civil servants to accomplish.
The ANCs have already taken a 50 percent cut in funding since 1994,
forcing some out of business and leaving citizens in many District
neighborhoods with no neighborhood representation.
So great have been the cuts and so detrimental to the neighborhoods
that the control board actually recommended a $78,000 increase in
funding for FY 1999, not zero funding, as proposed here.
Ironically, the cut in the appropriation comes as an auditor's report
shows that controls are working. The ANCs are audited on a regular
basis and must submit quarterly reports. The D.C. auditor's 1997 annual
report of ANCs reads much like a GAO report of Federal agencies.
Congress does not defund Federal agencies when we find problems. We
fix the problems. The amounts involved here are minimal and some ANCs
do not even spend their small allotments. This is local and only local
money and it is spent on bare necessities: Office expenses, faxes,
phones, neighborhood anticrime patrol equipment, and the like.
I would have no objection if the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Taylor) were to propose more stringent fiscal controls than the
admirable controls that already exist.
I could not agree more that the District cannot afford to waste a
cent. The auditor's report could provide a road map for further
reforms. Cutting off residents' lifeline to neighborhood improvement
will only increase the already astonishing flight from the city.
Restore this small amount in the appropriation. Give local residents,
who are doing more than their share, a break.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I agree, when you are talking about $5.2 billion, which
is an enormous amount of money for a city that is a little over 500,000
people, $600,000 or a little under $600,000 is not a lot of money.
What we are going to do as a body in performing our duty many times
is to speak about, in small sums, to make points about what has
happened to this city over a number of years.
As I mentioned a moment ago, it has not been just the money. It does
not need a new or additional appropriation, but it has been mismanaged
in such a callous way that the entire nation knows that it has been
mismanaged.
I pointed out a moment ago about the latest newspaper story about the
welfare department making almost $12,000 of 1-900 sex calls from the
department. That was today. If you look at the ANCs, you will see that
there have been numerous abuses. In fact, the newspapers point out that
for 20 years, the ANC has fallen short of what its purpose was aimed
for in the beginning.
The District Auditor has pointed out that numerous times the ANC has
failed to meet the requirements that the city provides in accounting or
any other phase.
In fact, the auditor in this headline points out, the D.C. auditor's
office has recommended the city cut off funds to the Advisory
Neighborhood Commission in the northwest until its books are balanced.

{time} 1730

In addition, we have a letter from the D.C. Federation of Civic
Associations, and they recommend, by resolution, Resolved, that it is
the sense of the Executive Committee that the Federation of Civic
Associations should work through the Committee of the ANC toward
recommendations that the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions be
abolished.
Now, we have the auditor recommending abolition, we have the D.C.
Federation of Civic Associations, and your own good judgment should
tell you, we should not continue to fund these associations.
We have internal financial controls, and I will point out that grants
awarded by the ANC are in violation of laws, internal financial control
procedures are not followed, questionable disbursements are disallowed,
diversions of funds to personnel use of the commissioners,
noncompliance with financial guidelines, inadequate record keeping.
Thirty-two percent of the ANCs had not filed required quarterly
reports, 19 percent have not filed those reports in a year, and one has
not filed in four years. Over one-half of the money appropriated to the
ANCs are not spent due to the ANC failures.
Now, this is an example. It harkens back to a time in D.C. that we
are trying to remedy. It should not be kept in a thought of
reminiscence. It should be abolished. We should abolish this fund, and
then talk with the City Council, and they would have the right to come
forward to see if there is really a need for the ANCs.
Now, the purpose of the ANC essentially is to represent people in the
District with a number of their problems. Few communities get $600,000
for the community to come forward and represent them. We have a City
Council with Members paid $85,000 per member to represent the people of
this city. We have the Control Board, not elected, but appointed, that
represents in some sense the people of the city. We have the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is a
nonvoting Member of Congress, who represents the people of the city,
and she does it quite effectively. Every Member of Congress represents
the people of this city.
So, I would say, let us delete this $600,000 expenditure and move
forward.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on Appropriations when we had this
discussion and dialogue, the chairman of the subcommittee said that he
had many, many examples of waste, fraud and abuse. Today he used the
same two examples, so I assume that he did not have the time to get
them. He said at the subcommittee meeting he did not have the time to
get them, but there were stacks of them. He used the same two today, so
I assume that he could not find those stacks.
But, more importantly, this has nothing to do with phone sex, this
has nothing to do with the associations. What it has to do with is in
the Home Rule Act, the people of the District decided that they would
like to have a layer of government at the neighborhood level.
Now, I am not here to defend the associations and say that they have
been perfect in every instance. If they have not, and the DC auditor
has looked at some of the irregularities, they have not filed reports
for the $16,000. There are not jobs involved in this; this is community
participation. I would think it would be a lot more constructive if we
tried to work with the auditor and work with the organizations to
improve them.
One of the pictures that was held up, it said that after two decades
DC has

[[Page H7348]]

not met its dream. I think, Mr. Chairman, we should try to help them
meet their dream of having involvement at the neighborhood level.
The $600,000 is not the important issue here. The important issue is
that the communities want to be involved in the government and in the
beautification and the neighborhood watch of their local community, and
the City Council has given all 36 of them less than $600,000 total to
deal with it, and you have just stripped it out of the budget and
stripped the desire for them to participate.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
First of all, I would like to remind my colleagues that money is
fungible. The Federal tax dollars we spend are all printed with green
and not identified by account. In recognizing that fact, we cannot come
before the American taxpayers and say these dollars are not Federal tax
dollars. Members of Congress vote to appropriate these funds. These are
federally appropriated funds, and we have the right to judge how the
money is spent and withhold funds that are destined to be spent
improperly.
A case in point is the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, also known
as the ANCs. They have existed in the District of Columbia for over 20
years. Unfortunately, 20 years has provided plenty of time for the
District's corrupt political machine to use the funds irresponsibly and
inappropriately.
It is time for Congress to put a stop to these slush funds. Why?
Because an audit of the ANCs' annual budget found that 12 of the 37
ANCs failed to submit one or more quarterly financial reports for
fiscal year 1997, and at least 5 of those 12 failed to submit reports
for a whole fiscal year.
In addition, the audit reported, internal control procedures were not
followed, and some ANC officers were found to have signed checks made
payable to themselves, including an ANC chairperson diverting over
$10,000 of these federally appropriated dollars for personal use and a
treasurer diverting another $2,400 for personal use.
ANC treasurers have failed to provide regular financial reports to
the commissioners. ANC officers have spent funds without obtaining
commission approval. Reimbursements were not often supported by
receipts or invoices. Bank statements, balances, were not reconciled
with checkbook balances. Voided checks were not consistently canceled,
mutilated or maintained in ANC files.
I oppose this amendment because this Congress should support funding
proposals that can help our Nation's Capital. This proposal simply
funds further corruption in this city.
The ANCs have had over 20 years to do the right job, and they simply
have failed. This amendment makes the Federal Government a
coconspirator in an effort to expand DC's corrupt bureaucratic
spiderweb into 37 separate neighborhood commissions.
In conclusion, I want Members of this body to think about a few
interesting facts: The State of Iowa, where I am from, appropriates
about $4.3 billion a year. Washington, DC has a $6.7 billion
appropriation. To compare, Iowa has over five times more people than
DC, has a much larger infrastructure than DC, spends less than one-half
per student on education, and Iowa is ranked number one in the Nation.
Washington, DC, spending more than twice that much, is ranked dead
last. Iowa was just named the best place in the country to raise a
child. Compare that to what we are seeing here in DC Obviously, we do
things a little differently in Iowa, but I can safely bet we do them a
little better.
We should stop wasting money on ANCs and use these dollars to
actually help the people of our Nation's great capital. DC does not
need more money, it needs honest leadership and management.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I know in a city where democracy has
been stifled and a strong thirst for participation, how deep the
feelings run on this, but in my judgment you can have civic
involvement, you can have grassroots organizing, without appropriated
funds. Out in my County of Fairfax we have hundreds of civic
associations. They are the lifeblood of the community, but we do it
without government money moving down, and in many instances getting
misspent and misappropriated through time.
So I think the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) has it
right on this particular amendment, and, with all due respect to my
friend, the delegate from the District of Columbia, I join the chairman
in opposing this amendment.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I may just ask the
gentleman, you are saying actually people do these things in
communities without getting paid for them?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Absolutely, with great pride. They either
raise the money locally, or they do it just the old-fashioned way, with
volunteer time.
Mr. LATHAM. That is kind of way we do it in Iowa.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise in support of this amendment. The
reason is a pretty basic principle. What we are appropriating, Federal
money is directed. This is local money. This really is the money that
comes from the citizens of the District of Columbia, and it would seem
they should be able to spend it as they would like. I admire the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for wanting to
sustain the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, because she lives in
D.C., and it is not always convenient to have these ANCs.
For example, the gentlewoman wanted to build a deck, and she had to
go before the ANC before she can build a deck because it affects the
quality of life of her neighbors. The former Speaker wanted to put in a
garage, he wanted to close an alley. He could not do it because he had
to go to the Advisory Neighborhood Commission himself. Mr. Michel, the
former minority leader, had to go through the same kind of thing. I am
sure it is annoying, but the fact is it provides a kind of vigilance to
protect these individual neighborhoods.
Now, I thought that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor)
brought up a very important point when he showed the newspaper article,
because the newspaper article pointed out that the woman, who happened
to be the mayor's former wife, Mrs. Treadwell, but the woman did
misappropriate funds. That was a crime. But the point is that an audit
caught it and she was punished for it. So the system is working. When
we have these egregious instances, the people that commit them are
caught, they are brought to justice, and it shows that the people of
the District of Columbia are not going to tolerate this kind of thing.
I think that is good.
I am sure that the ANCs do not work at maximum efficiency nor
effectiveness, and we have read articles that show that there are a lot
of deficiencies. What the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) suggested is try to fix it; suggest some things that will
tighten it up. Already suggestions have been made by Members of the
D.C. council, and I understand they are going to be implemented, that
will tighten it up, and we could do more than that.
But I think to impose our will upon something that thousands of
people are involved in, to say no, you cannot do this, you cannot do it
with your own money, you have to give up what is really the most
directly representative government that the District of Columbia has,
is contrary to the principle that I thought the other side stood for,
which is the maximum devolution of authority and responsibility down to
the lowest level possible, where people can exercise their civic duties
and responsibilities, and that is this Advisory Neighborhood Commission
structure.
I do not want to fall on our sword on this, and some of the things
they have done are clearly indefensible.

{time} 1745

But I think it is more indefensible for us to stand here as judge and
jury and

[[Page H7349]]

to say that the citizens of the District cannot use their own money as
they would choose.
If this was a direct appropriation I think it would be something
different, and I trust that we would not be appropriating directly
Federal funds. But that is not what this is. This is really an
imposition from the Federal Government in a way that not only is
micromanagement, but I think is a real slap in the face to the efforts
of the District of Columbia to gain maximum representation for their
citizens, and particularly, opportunities for their civic leaders.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WATERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, it is my obligation to rise and respond to the
gentleman from Iowa, who claimed that the funds involved, the funds
before us, are ``Federally appropriated funds,'' leaving the impression
that the funds we are discussing as ANC funds are Federal funds somehow
fungible to the Federal budget.
Let me be clear. Every cent of the funds involved here was raised in
the District of Columbia from District taxpayers. These funds are found
in the budget of the District of Columbia. These funds were scrubbed
and approved by the Control Board, which did so after looking at the
auditor's report, after satisfying itself that the kinds of inevitable
abuses we will find in this kind of operation were being addressed.
It is bad enough for the Federal Government to be appropriating
somebody else's money, as I speak. We should not be appropriating a
cent of the money before us. It is not Federal money, it was raised by
my constituents in my city. It is bad enough for Members to appropriate
it, but then to insist that because they appropriated it, it is
fungible with the Federal budget, is an insult to the hardworking
people of the District of Columbia, and I will not have it.
This is their money. Let them use their money as they please, as long
as that money is used honestly and there are controls, and we have seen
that there are.
Ms. WATERS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, this debate is
unbelievable. Everything that I have been taught as an elected
official, and prior to ever being elected to office, had to do with
involvement in community.
I was taught that it is important to be involved in neighborhood
watch programs, to be involved in tree planting programs, to be
involved in cleanup programs in the neighborhood, to be involved in
one's city in ways that will help drive the politics at City Hall, in
the State, and even in the Federal Government, oftentimes. Community
involvement is very, very special.
For communities with a lot of money, oftentimes people do that
because they have assistance that frees them up to be able to do it.
They have money that they can put in, they have resources. They can
call on their wealthy friends.
But not all communities are free to be involved in those ways. Many
poor people, many average workers, give what they can of their time and
their resources, but I firmly believe that every local government ought
to have support for citizens who want to be involved in their
government.
One of the things I have been very pleased about, as I have come to
spend time in the District of Columbia, is the local involvement of the
ANCs. I have seen the work they do and the notices they put out in the
neighborhood. I am absolutely appalled, and really do not understand
why anybody, particularly my friends on the other side of the aisle who
claim to be about the business of involving citizens, good citizenship,
about people being involved in their government, would pull the rug out
from under local citizens who are doing just that with their own
resources and their own money.
I dare tell the Members that none of the persons on the other side of
the aisle can tell us what dollars are being spent in their many cities
and towns for all kinds of activities. They would not dare confront the
citizens of any of those towns and cities in their district and tell
them they could not accept money from their city for involvement in
ways that they have decided.
It is easy to come to Washington and pick on the District. Oh, yes,
the District has had its problems. They would not do this kind of mess
at home. They would not do it, because their citizens would not stand
for it.
Well, maybe the citizens do not have all they need to fight them
back. But for them to stand here and look the gentlewoman in the face
and tell her that they are going to dictate to her citizens in the
District of Columbia, using their own money, that they cannot be
involved in local government, is outrageous.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Economic Development and Regulation

Economic development and regulation, $159,039,000
(including $45,162,000 from local funds, $83,365,000 from
Federal funds, and $30,512,000 from other funds), of which
$12,000,000 collected by the District of Columbia in the form
of BID tax revenue shall be paid to the respective BIDS
pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996
(D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the
Business Improvement Districts Temporary Amendment Act of
1997 (D.C. Law 12-23): Provided, That such funds are
available for acquiring services provided by the Federal
General Services Administration: Provided further, That
Business Improvement Districts shall be exempt from taxes
levied by the District of Columbia.

Public Safety and Justice

Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease of
135 passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement only,
including 130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use,
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year, $755,786,000 (including $531,660,000
from local funds, $30,327,000 from Federal funds, and
$193,799,000 from other funds): Provided, That the
Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not
to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Department
of Fire and Emergency Medical Services of the District of
Columbia is authorized to replace not to exceed five
passenger-carrying vehicles annually whenever the cost of
repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds three-fourths of the
cost of the replacement: Provided further, That not to exceed
$500,000 shall be available from this appropriation for the
Chief of Police for the prevention and detection of crime:
Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department
shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate on efforts to increase
efficiency and improve the professionalism in the department:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, or Mayor's Order 86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the
Metropolitan Police Department's delegated small purchase
authority shall be $500,000: Provided further, That the
District of Columbia government may not require the
Metropolitan Police Department to submit to any other
procurement review process, or to obtain the approval of or
be restricted in any manner by any official or employee of
the District of Columbia government, for purchases that do
not exceed $500,000: Provided further, That the Mayor shall
reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for
expenses incurred in connection with services that are
performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia
status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall
be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for
these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the
District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That
such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the
District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding
proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the
availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting
payment in advance for emergency services involved: Provided
further, That the Metropolitan Police Department is
authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn officers, with leave for a
50 officer attrition: Provided further, That no more than 15
members of the Metropolitan Police Department shall be
detailed or assigned to the Executive Protection Unit, until
the Chief of Police submits a recommendation to the Council
for its review: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be
available for inmates released on medical and geriatric
parole: Provided further, That commencing on December 31,
1998, the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, and the Committee on Government

[[Page H7350]]

Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives,
quarterly reports on the status of crime reduction in each of
the 83 police service areas established throughout the
District of Columbia: Provided further, That funds
appropriated for expenses under the District of Columbia
Criminal Justice Act, approved September 3, 1974 (88 Stat.
1090; Public Law 93-412; D.C. Code, sec. 11-2601 et seq.),
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, shall be
available for obligations incurred under the Act in each
fiscal year since inception in the fiscal year 1975: Provided
further, That funds appropriated for expenses under the
District of Columbia Neglect Representation Equity Act of
1984, effective March 13, 1985 (D.C. Law 5-129; D.C. Code,
sec. 16-2304), for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999,
shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in
each fiscal year since inception in the fiscal year 1985:
Provided further, That funds appropriated for expenses under
the District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective
Proceedings, and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986,
effective February 27, 1987 (D.C. Law 6-204; D.C. Code, sec.
21-2060), for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999,
shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in
each fiscal year since inception in fiscal year 1989.

Public Education System

Public education system, including the development of
national defense education programs, $793,725,000 (including
$640,135,000 from local funds, $130,638,000 from Federal
funds, and $22,952,000 from other funds), to be allocated as
follows: $644,805,000 (including $545,000,000 from local
funds, $95,121,000 from Federal funds, and $4,684,000 from
other funds), for the public schools of the District of
Columbia; $18,600,000 from local funds for the District of
Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; $32,626,000 (including
$12,235,000 from local funds and $20,391,000 from Federal
funds not including funds already made available for District
of Columbia public schools) for public charter schools:
Provided, That if the entirety of this allocation has not
been provided as payments to any public charter schools
currently in operation through the per pupil funding formula,
the funds shall be available for new public charter schools
on a per pupil basis: Provided further, That $485,000 be
available to the District of Columbia Public Charter School
Board for administrative costs: Provided further, That if the
entirety of this allocation has not been provided as payment
to one or more public charter schools by May 1, 1999, and
remains unallocated, the funds shall be deposited into a
special revolving loan fund described in section 172 of
Public Law 95-100 (111 Stat. 2191), to be used solely to
assist existing or new public charter schools in meeting
startup and operating costs: Provided further, That the
Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees of the
District of Columbia shall report to Congress not later than
120 days after the date of enactment of this Act on the
capital needs of each public charter school and whether the
current per pupil funding formula should reflect these needs:
Provided further, That until the Emergency Transitional
Education Board of Trustees reports to Congress as provided
in the preceding proviso, the Emergency Transitional
Education Board of Trustees shall take appropriate steps to
provide public charter schools with assistance to meet
capital expenses in a manner that is equitable with respect
to assistance provided to other District of Columbia public
schools: Provided further, That the Emergency Transitional
Education Board of Trustees shall report to Congress not
later than November 1, 1998, on the implementation of their
policy to give preference to newly created District of
Columbia public charter schools for surplus public school
property; $72,088,000 (including $40,148,000 from local
funds, $14,079,000 from Federal funds, and $17,861,000 from
other funds) for the University of the District of Columbia;
$23,419,000 (including $22,326,000 from local funds, $686,000
from Federal funds and $407,000 from other funds) for the
Public Library; $2,187,000 (including $1,826,000 from local
funds and $361,000 from Federal funds) for the Commission on
the Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That the public
schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept
not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use in the
driver education program: Provided further, That not to
exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for
the President of the University of the District of Columbia,
and $2,000 for the Public Librarian shall be available from
this appropriation for official purposes: Provided further,
That in using funds for repair and improvement of the
District of Columbia's public school facilities made
available under this or any other Act, the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority (or its designee) may place orders for engineering
and construction and related services with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers: Provided further, That the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers may accept such orders on a reimbursable
basis and may provide any part of the services under such
orders by contract. In providing such services, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers shall follow the Federal Acquisitions
Regulation and the implementing regulations of the Department
of Defense: Provided further, That $244,078 shall be used to
reimburse the National Capital Area Council of the Boy Scouts
of America for services provided on behalf of 12,600 students
at 39 public schools in the District of Columbia during
fiscal year 1998 (including staff, curriculum, and support
materials): Provided further, That the Inspector General of
the District of Columbia shall certify not later than 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act whether or not
the services were so provided: Provided further, That the
reimbursement shall be made not later than 15 days after the
Inspector General certifies that the services were provided:
Provided further, That up to $500,000 shall be available for
services provided by the National Capital Area Council of the
Boy Scouts of America for services provided at 78 schools in
the District of Columbia during fiscal year 1999 (including
staff, curriculum, and support materials): Provided further,
That none of the funds contained in this Act may be made
available to pay the salaries of any District of Columbia
Public School teacher, principal, administrator, official, or
employee who provides false enrollment or attendance
information under article II, section 5 of the Act entitled
``An Act to provide for compulsory school attendance, for the
taking of a school census in the District of Columbia, and
for other purposes'', approved February 4, 1925 (DC Code,
sec. 31-401 et seq.): Provided further, That funds in this
Act shall not be available for pay raises to teachers in the
District of Columbia Public Schools who have not passed
competency tests in literacy, communications, and subject
matter skills: Provided further, That this appropriation
shall not be available to subsidize the education of any
nonresident of the District of Columbia at any District of
Columbia public elementary or secondary school during fiscal
year 1999 unless the nonresident pays tuition to the District
of Columbia at a rate that covers 100 percent of the costs
incurred by the District of Columbia which are attributable
to the education of the nonresident (as established by the
Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools):
Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be
available to subsidize the education of nonresidents of the
District of Columbia at the University of the District of
Columbia, unless the Board of Trustees of the University of
the District of Columbia adopts, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1999, a tuition rate schedule that will
establish the tuition rate for nonresident students at a
level no lower than the nonresident tuition rate charged at
comparable public institutions of higher education in the
metropolitan area.

Human Support Services

Human support services, $1,514,751,000 (including
$614,679,000 from local funds, $886,682,000 from Federal
funds, and $13,390,000 from other funds): Provided, That
$21,089,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until
expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia
employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That a
peer review committee shall be established to review medical
payments and the type of service received by a disability
compensation claimant: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia shall not provide free government services such as
water, sewer, solid waste disposal or collection, utilities,
maintenance, repairs, or similar services to any legally
constituted private nonprofit organization, as defined in
section 411(5) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11371), providing emergency
shelter services in the District, if the District would not
be qualified to receive reimbursement pursuant to such Act
(101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.).

Public Works

Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying
vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying
vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia
and leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles, $266,912,000
(including $257,242,000 from local funds, $3,216,000 from
Federal funds, and $6,454,000 from other funds): Provided,
That this appropriation shall not be available for collecting
ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and places of
business.

Washington Convention Center Fund Transfer Payment

For payment to the Washington Convention Center, $5,400,000
from local funds.

Repayment of Loans and Interest

For reimbursement to the United States of funds loaned in
compliance with An Act to provide for the establishment of a
modern, adequate, and efficient hospital center in the
District of Columbia, approved August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 896;
Public Law 79-648); section 1 of An Act to authorize the
Commissioners of the District of Columbia to borrow funds for
capital improvement programs and to amend provisions of law
relating to Federal Government participation in meeting costs
of maintaining the Nation's Capital City, approved June 6,
1958 (72 Stat. 183; Public Law 85-451; D.C. Code, sec. 9-
219); section 4 of An Act to authorize the Commissioners of
the District of Columbia to plan, construct, operate, and
maintain a sanitary sewer to connect the Dulles International
Airport with the District of Columbia system, approved June
12, 1960 (74 Stat. 211; Public Law 86-515); sections 723 and
743(f) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved
December 24, 1973, as amended (87 Stat. 821; Public Law 93-
198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-321, note; 91 Stat. 1156; Public Law
95-131; D.C. Code, sec. 9-219, note), including interest as
required thereby, $382,170,000 from local funds.

[[Page H7351]]

Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt

For the purpose of eliminating the $331,589,000 general
fund accumulated deficit as of September 30, 1990,
$38,453,000 from local funds, as authorized by section 461(a)
of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December
24, 1973, as amended (105 Stat. 540; Public Law 102-106; D.C.
Code, sec. 47-321(a)(1)).

Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing

For payment of interest on short-term borrowing,
$11,000,000.

Certificates of Participation

For lease payments in accordance with the Certificates of
Participation involving the land site underlying the building
located at One Judiciary Square, $7,926,000.

Human Resources Development

For human resources development, $6,674,000.

Productivity Savings

The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
shall, under the direction of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
make reductions of $10,000,000 in local funds to one or more
of the appropriation headings in this Act for productivity
savings.

Receivership Programs

For agencies of the District of Columbia government under
court ordered receivership, $318,979,000 (including
$188,439,000 from local funds, $96,691,000 from Federal
funds, and $33,849,000 from other funds).

District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority

For the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority, established by section
101(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Act of 1995, approved April 17,
1995 (109 Stat. 97; Public Law 104-8), $7,840,000: Provided,
That none of the funds contained in this Act may be used to
pay the compensation of the Executive Director or General
Counsel of the Authority during any period after April 1,
1999, for which such individual has not repaid the Treasury
of the District of Columbia for compensation paid during any
fiscal year which is determined by the Comptroller General
(as described in GAO letter report B-279095.2) to have been
paid in excess of the maximum rate of compensation which may
be paid to such individual during such year under section 102
of such Act: Provided further, That none of the funds
contained in this Act may be used to pay any compensation of
the Executive Director or General Counsel of the Authority at
a rate in excess of the maximum rate of compensation which
may be paid to such individual during fiscal year 1999 under
section 102 of such Act, as determined by the Comptroller
General (as described in GAO letter report B-279095.2):
Provided further, That not later than 5 calendar days after
the end of each month (beginning with September 1998), the
Authority shall provide to the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia a statement of the balance of each
account held by the Authority as of the end of the month,
together with a description of the activities within each
such account during the month: Provided further, That none of
the funds contained in this or any other Act may be used to
pay the salary or expenses of any officer or employee of the
Authority who is required to provide information under the
preceding proviso and who fails to provide such information
in accordance with such proviso.

Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct

For the Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington
Aqueduct, $273,314,000 from other funds (including
$239,493,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority and
$33,821,000 for the Washington Aqueduct) of which $39,933,000
shall be apportioned and payable to the District's debt
service fund for repayment of loans and interest incurred for
capital improvement projects.

Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board

For the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board,
established by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, approved December
4, 1981 (95 Stat. 1174, 1175; Public Law 97-91), as amended,
for the purpose of implementing the Law to Legalize
Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and Raffles for
Charitable Purposes in the District of Columbia, effective
March 10, 1981 (D.C. Law 3-172; D.C. Code, secs. 2-2501 et
seq. and 22-1516 et seq.), $225,200,000: Provided, That the
District of Columbia shall identify the source of funding for
this appropriation title from the District's own locally
generated revenues: Provided further, That no revenues from
Federal sources shall be used to support the operations or
activities of the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board.

Cable Television Enterprise Fund

For the Cable Television Enterprise Fund, established by
the Cable Television Communications Act of 1981, effective
October 22, 1983 (D.C. Law 5-36; D.C. Code, sec. 43-1801 et
seq.), $2,108,000 from other funds.

Public Service Commission

For the Public Service Commission, $5,026,000 (including
$252,000 from Federal funds and $4,774,000 from other funds).

Office of the People's Counsel

For the Office of the People's Counsel, $2,501,000 from
other funds.

Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation

For the Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation,
$7,001,000 from other funds.

Office of Banking and Financial Institutions

For the Office of Banking and Financial Institutions,
$640,000 (including $390,000 from local funds and $250,000
from other funds).

Starplex Fund

For the Starplex Fund, $8,751,000 from other funds for
expenses incurred by the Armory Board in the exercise of its
powers granted by An Act To Establish A District of Columbia
Armory Board, and for other purposes, approved June 4, 1948
(62 Stat. 339; D.C. Code, sec. 2-301 et seq.) and the
District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957, approved September
7, 1957 (71 Stat. 619; Public Law 85-300; D.C. Code, sec. 2-
321 et seq.): Provided, That the Mayor shall submit a budget
for the Armory Board for the forthcoming fiscal year as
required by section 442(b) of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 824; Public
Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301(b)).

D.C. General Hospital (Public Benefit Corporation)

For the District of Columbia General Hospital, established
by Reorganization Order No. 57 of the Board of Commissioners,
effective August 15, 1953, $113,599,000 of which $46,835,000
shall be derived by transfer from the general fund, and
$66,764,000 shall be derived from other funds.

D.C. Retirement Board

For the D.C. Retirement Board, established by section 121
of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform Act of 1979,
approved November 17, 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
711), $18,202,000 from the earnings of the applicable
retirement funds to pay legal, management, investment, and
other fees and administrative expenses of the District of
Columbia Retirement Board: Provided, That the District of
Columbia Retirement Board shall provide to the Congress and
to the Council of the District of Columbia a quarterly report
of the allocations of charges by fund and of expenditures of
all funds: Provided further, That the District of Columbia
Retirement Board shall provide the Mayor, for transmittal to
the Council of the District of Columbia, an itemized
accounting of the planned use of appropriated funds in time
for each annual budget submission and the actual use of such
funds in time for each annual audited financial report.

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.

Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund

For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund,
$53,539,000, of which $5,400,000 shall be derived by transfer
from the general fund.

Capital Outlay

(including rescissions)

For construction projects, a net increase of $1,711,160,737
(including a rescission of $114,430,742 of which $24,437,811
is from local funds and $89,992,931 is from highway trust
funds appropriated under this heading in prior fiscal years,
and an additional $1,825,591,479 of which $718,234,161 is
from local funds, $24,452,538 is from the highway trust fund,
and $1,082,904,780 is from Federal funds), to remain
available until expended: Provided, That funds for use of
each capital project implementing agency shall be managed and
controlled in accordance with all procedures and limitations
established under the Financial Management System: Provided
further, That all funds provided by this appropriation title
shall be available only for the specific projects and
purposes intended: Provided further, That notwithstanding the
foregoing, all authorizations for capital outlay projects,
except those projects covered by the first sentence of
section 23(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968,
approved August 23, 1968 (82 Stat. 827; Public Law 90-495;
D.C. Code, sec. 7-134, note), for which funds are provided by
this appropriation title, shall expire on September 30, 2000,
except authorizations for projects as to which funds have
been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30,
2000: Provided further, That upon expiration of any such
project authorization the funds provided herein for the
project shall lapse.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 28, line 7, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

General Provisions

Sec. 101. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant

[[Page H7352]]

to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those contracts where
such expenditures are a matter of public record and available
for public inspection, except where otherwise provided under
existing law, or under existing Executive order issued
pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 102. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all
vouchers covering expenditures of appropriations contained in
this Act shall be audited before payment by the designated
certifying official and the vouchers as approved shall be
paid by checks issued by the designated disbursing official.
Sec. 103. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified
within an appropriation for particular purposes or objects of
expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified, shall
be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for
said purpose or object rather than an amount set apart
exclusively therefor.
Sec. 104. Appropriations in this Act shall be available,
when authorized by the Mayor, for allowances for privately
owned automobiles and motorcycles used for the performance of
official duties at rates established by the Mayor: Provided,
That such rates shall not exceed the maximum prevailing rates
for such vehicles as prescribed in the Federal Property
Management Regulations 101-7 (Federal Travel Regulations).
Sec. 105. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for
expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of
organizations concerned with the work of the District of
Columbia government, when authorized by the Mayor: Provided,
That the Council of the District of Columbia and the District
of Columbia Courts may expend such funds without
authorization by the Mayor.
Sec. 106. There are appropriated from the applicable funds
of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for
making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have
been entered against the District of Columbia government:
Provided, That of such appropriations, the District of
Columbia is directed to refund by September 30, 1999, up to
$17,800,000 of overpayments collected by the District of
Columbia Department of Public Works for parking ticket
violations as reported by the District of Columbia Auditor in
a report dated March 19, 1998: Provided further, That nothing
contained in this section shall be construed as modifying or
affecting the provisions of section 11(c)(3) of title XII
of the District of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act
of 1947, approved March 31, 1956 (70 Stat. 78; Public Law
84-460; D.C. Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
Sec. 107. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for
the payment of public assistance without reference to the
requirement of section 544 of the District of Columbia Public
Assistance Act of 1982, effective April 6, 1982 (D.C. Law 4-
101; D.C. Code, sec. 3-205.44), and for the non-Federal share
of funds necessary to qualify for Federal assistance under
the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968,
approved July 31, 1968 (82 Stat. 462; Public Law 90-445; 42
U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).
Sec. 108. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 109. No funds appropriated in this Act for the
District of Columbia government for the operation of
educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or
for other educational purposes may be used to permit,
encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political
activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the
availability of school buildings for the use of any community
or partisan political group during non-school hours.
Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the
District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade,
salary, past work experience, and salary history are not
available for inspection by the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia of the
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Council of
the District of Columbia, or their duly authorized
representative.
Sec. 111. There are appropriated from the applicable funds
of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for
making payments authorized by the District of Columbia
Revenue Recovery Act of 1977, effective September 23, 1977
(D.C. Law 2-20; D.C. Code, sec. 47-421 et seq.).
Sec. 112. No part of this appropriation shall be used for
publicity or propaganda purposes or implementation of any
policy including boycott designed to support or defeat
legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature.
Sec. 113. At the start of the fiscal year, the Mayor shall
develop an annual plan, by quarter and by project, for
capital outlay borrowings: Provided, That within a reasonable
time after the close of each quarter, the Mayor shall report
to the Council of the District of Columbia and the Congress
the actual borrowings and spending progress compared with
projections.
Sec. 114. The Mayor shall not borrow any funds for capital
projects unless the Mayor has obtained prior approval from
the Council of the District of Columbia, by resolution,
identifying the projects and amounts to be financed with such
borrowings.
Sec. 115. The Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed
for capital projects for the operating expenses of the
District of Columbia government.
Sec. 116. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
obligated or expended by reprogramming except pursuant to
advance approval of the reprogramming granted according to
the procedure set forth in the Joint Explanatory Statement of
the Committee of Conference (House Report No. 96-443), which
accompanied the District of Columbia Appropriation Act, 1980,
approved October 30, 1979 (93 Stat. 713; Public Law 96-93),
as modified in House Report No. 98-265, and in accordance
with the Reprogramming Policy Act of 1980, effective
September 16, 1980 (D.C. Law 3-100; D.C. Code, sec. 47-361 et
seq.): Provided, That for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1999 the above shall apply except as modified by Public
Law 104-8.
Sec. 117. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook,
chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of the District of Columbia.
Sec. 118. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
shall be obligated or expended to procure passenger
automobiles as defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act
of 1980, approved October 10, 1980 (94 Stat. 1824; Public Law
96-425; 15 U.S.C. 2001(2)), with an Environmental Protection
Agency estimated miles per gallon average of less than 22
miles per gallon: Provided, That this section shall not apply
to security, emergency rescue, or armored vehicles.
Sec. 119. (a) Notwithstanding section 422(7) of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24,
1973 (87 Stat. 790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
242(7)), the City Administrator shall be paid, during any
fiscal year, a salary at a rate established by the Mayor, not
to exceed the rate established for level IV of the Executive
Schedule under 5 U.S.C. 5315.
(b) For purposes of applying any provision of law limiting
the availability of funds for payment of salary or pay in any
fiscal year, the highest rate of pay established by the Mayor
under subsection (a) of this section for any position for any
period during the last quarter of calendar year 1998 shall be
deemed to be the rate of pay payable for that position for
September 30, 1998.
(c) Notwithstanding section 4(a) of the District of
Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945, approved August 2, 1946
(60 Stat. 793; Public Law 79-592; D.C. Code, sec. 5-803(a)),
the Board of Directors of the District of Columbia
Redevelopment Land Agency shall be paid, during any fiscal
year, per diem compensation at a rate established by the
Mayor.
Sec. 120. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
provisions of the District of Columbia Government
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, effective March 3,
1979 (D.C. Law 2-139; D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.),
enacted pursuant to section 422(3) of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat.
790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(3)), shall
apply with respect to the compensation of District of
Columbia employees: Provided, That for pay purposes,
employees of the District of Columbia government shall not be
subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 121. The Director of the Office of Property Management
may pay rentals and repair, alter, and improve rented
premises, without regard to the provisions of section 322 of
the Economy Act of 1932 (Public Law 72-212; 40 U.S.C. 278a),
based upon a determination by the Director, that by reason of
circumstances set forth in such determination, the payment
of these rents and the execution of this work, without
reference to the limitations of section 322, is
advantageous to the District in terms of economy,
efficiency, and the District's best interest.
Sec. 122. No later than 30 days after the end of the first
quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council
of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 1999 revenue
estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year
1999. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. The officially
revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear
report.
Sec. 123. No sole source contract with the District of
Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or
extended without opening that contract to the competitive
bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District
of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985, effective
February 21, 1986 (D.C. Law 6-85; D.C. Code, sec. 1-1183.3),
except that the District of Columbia government or any agency
thereof may renew or extend sole source contracts for which
competition is not feasible or practical: Provided, That the
determination as to whether to invoke the competitive bidding
process has been made in accordance with duly promulgated
rules and procedures and said determination has been reviewed
and approved by the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.
Sec. 124. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99
Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-177), as amended, the term
``program, project, and activity'' shall be synonymous with
and refer specifically to each account appropriating Federal
funds in this Act, and any sequestration order shall be
applied to each of the accounts rather

[[Page H7353]]

than to the aggregate total of those accounts: Provided, That
sequestration orders shall not be applied to any account that
is specifically exempted from sequestration by the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, approved
December 12, 1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-177), as
amended.
Sec. 125. In the event a sequestration order is issued
pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99 Stat. 1037:
Public Law 99-177), as amended, after the amounts
appropriated to the District of Columbia for the fiscal year
involved have been paid to the District of Columbia, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia shall pay to the Secretary
of the Treasury, within 15 days after receipt of a request
therefor from the Secretary of the Treasury, such amounts as
are sequestered by the order: Provided, That the
sequestration percentage specified in the order shall be
applied proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation
accounts in this Act that are not specifically exempted from
sequestration by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99 Stat.
1037; Public Law 99-177), as amended.
Sec. 126. (a) An entity of the District of Columbia
government may accept and use a gift or donation during
fiscal year 1999 if--
(1) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift
or donation, except that the Council of the District of
Columbia may accept and use gifts without prior approval by
the Mayor; and
(2) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its
authorized functions or duties.
(b) Each entity of the District of Columbia government
shall keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance
and use of any gift or donation under subsection (a) of this
section, and shall make such records available for audit and
public inspection.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``entity of
the District of Columbia government'' includes an independent
agency of the District of Columbia.
(d) This section shall not apply to the District of
Columbia Board of Education, which may, pursuant to the laws
and regulations of the District of Columbia, accept and use
gifts to the public schools without prior approval by the
Mayor.
Sec. 127. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for
salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the
offices of United States Senator or United States
Representative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia
Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979,
effective March 10, 1981 (D.C. Law 3-171; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
113(d)).
Sec. 128. The University of the District of Columbia shall
submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
and the Council of the District of Columbia no later than
fifteen (15) calendar days after the end of each month a
report that sets forth--
(1) current month expenditures and obligations, year-to-
date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year
expenditure projections versus budget broken out on the basis
of control center, responsibility center, and object class,
and for all funds, non-appropriated funds, and capital
financing;
(2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and
the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center,
responsibility center, detailed object, and for all funding
sources;
(3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000
annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the
budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the
basis of control center and responsibility center, and
contract identifying codes used by the University of the
District of Columbia; payments made in the last month and
year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total
payments made for the contract and any modifications,
extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each
contract in the last month;
(4) all reprogramming requests and reports that have been
made by the University of the District of Columbia within the
last month in compliance with applicable law; and
(5) changes made in the last month to the organizational
structure of the University of the District of Columbia,
displaying previous and current control centers and
responsibility centers, the names of the organizational
entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member
supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the
structural change.
Sec. 129. Funds authorized or previously appropriated to
the government of the District of Columbia by this or any
other Act to procure the necessary hardware and installation
of new software, conversion, testing, and training to improve
or replace its financial management system are also available
for the acquisition of accounting and financial management
services and the leasing of necessary hardware, software or
any other related goods or services, as determined by the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority.
Sec. 130. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be made available to pay the fees of an attorney who
represents a party who prevails in an action brought against
the District of Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) if--
(1) the hourly rate of compensation of the attorney exceeds
the hourly rate of compensation under section 11-2604(a),
District of Columbia Code; or
(2) the maximum amount of compensation of the attorney
exceeds the maximum amount of compensation under section 11-
2604(b)(1), District of Columbia Code, except that
compensation and reimbursement in excess of such maximum may
be approved for extended or complex representation in
accordance with section 11-2604(c), District of Columbia
Code.
(b) None of the funds contained in this Act may be made
available to pay the fees of an attorney who represents a
party who prevails in an administrative proceeding under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400
et seq.).
Sec. 131. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
available for the operations of any department, agency, or
entity (other than the District of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority, the Washington Convention Center Authority, or any
operations for borrowing activities under part E of title IV
of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act) unless
appropriated by Congress in an annual appropriations Act.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the bill, through page 42, line 2, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?

point of order

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia will state his point of
order.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXI, I make a
point of order against Section 131 of the bill on the ground that it
legislates on an appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is
recognized.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is
not legislating. It is not subject to a point of order. The Board
wishes to spend and does spend interest earned on the money that it has
without this body's appropriating it. It would be somewhat analogous to
the Treasurer of the United States investing money of the people of the
United States, and then stating that he, himself, could spend that
money without it being appropriated by the people of the United States.
So I do not believe that this is subject to a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) makes a point
of order against Section 131. Section 131 precludes the use of funds
contained in this act unless appropriated.
Because the funds contained in the Act include funds derived from
transfer or from interest on District accounts, Section 131 is in
direct contravention of Section 106(d) of the District of Columbia
Responsibility Management Assistance Act. Section 106(d) permits the
use of such funds without congressional approval.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained, and Section 131 is
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 132. None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of
the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to
term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape
or incest.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Norton

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Norton:
Page 42, line 3, strike ``funds'' and insert ``Federal
funds''.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that all debates on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in
30 minutes, and that the time be equally divided among the parties.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?

[[Page H7354]]

There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The time will be designated equally for 30 minutes
between the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the present bill contains language barring
the use of both Federal and District funds to pay for abortion services
for low-income women. I do not rise to ask for an exception to the
strongly-held views of this Congress on abortion. I ask only that the
District of Columbia be treated no better and no worse than other
districts.
I must accept that the rule of this body on a prohibition on Federal
funds should yield to no exception, except in the case of protecting
the life of the mother, rape, or incest.
Barring the use of Federal funds for abortion for low-income women
creates a special hardship for a jurisdiction that has been in
financial crisis. Considering its financial position, the District is
unlikely to choose to fund abortions on its own.
However, no city should be put in the position where it would be
unable to respond even to catastrophic pregnancies by using its own
locally-raised funds, if necessary. This is a Federal Republic built on
the premise that there are vast differences among us. No issue shows
these differences more than reproductive choice.
The Congress is within its rights to say, use your funds, not ours.
It is out of line when it tells a local jurisdiction how to spend its
own taxpayers' funds. The real test of democracy is whether we are
prepared to allow others to make lawful choices we ourselves would not
make.
I have profound respect for the conscientious and religious scruples
of those who oppose abortion. The District has the right to the same
respect. I ask Members to allow the District to spend its own local
funds as it may need for abortions for indigent women.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time. I want to thank Mr. Taylor for his courage and
leadership, and especially his compassion, in including this very
important amendment that will prevent the use of all public funds,
taxpayer funds, whether they be Federal or locally-raised, but all of
which are under the jurisdiction of the Congress and so under the
jurisdiction of the United States Constitution. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for taking the lead in ensuring that the legislation you have
brought to the floor will in no way put unborn children at risk.
It will save lives.
Let me remind Members, when this provision was not in effect, the
District of Columbia used to perform, with public funds, taxpayer
funds, something on the order of over 3,000 abortions every year.

{time} 1800

All you have to do is open up the phone book and you see that many of
the organizations, like Planned Parenthood and others, are doing
abortions right up to the 24th week, 24 weeks! These are precious
babies, worthy of respect. Rather than killing children, our debate
ought to be how we can best mitigate disease or do microsurgery, to
treat that baby as a patient rather than something that is to be
destroyed like a tumor or something that is unwanted.
Unwantedness makes children objects--throwaways.
Let me remind my colleagues, I think it cannot be said enough,
abortion is child abuse. One of these days my friends on the other side
of this issue are going to take the time, and I think for a few that
has already begun, at least to some extent, with the partial-birth
abortion debate. For the first time, Americans--Members of Congress--
are taking the time to recognize that it is the deed that we are
talking about. Abortion is a violent act. Dismembering an unborn child
by literally taking off and hacking off the arms and the legs and even
the head, that is not a benign or a compassionate act. It is child
abuse. It is violence.
If you dismembered a child after he or she were born, you would
rightfully be brought up on charges of abusing children. A child before
birth is no less human and no less alive. Yes, he or she happens to be
dependent and they are less mature than a newborn infant or toddler,
but they are no less human.
I truly believe that the abortion issue, the respect for unborn
children is the ultimate human rights issue. I have been in Congress
for 18 years. I work day and night, my Subcommittee on International
Operations and Human Rights is the lead committee in Congress on human
rights. We have had about 70 or more hearings since I assumed the chair
on Indonesia, China, Cuba, Turkey, Iraq to name a few, promoting human
rights.
Human rights are dear to my heart. Respect for life is of surpassing
importance. The right to life is the most elemental of all human
rights. And to arbitrarily say that birth, which is only an event that
happens to each and every one of us, it is not the beginning of life,
and to say that just because the baby is in utero, just because the
baby is seemingly out of sight, although even that has changed with
ultrasound and sonograms. Now we can see. My wife and I have four
children. We saw our children before birth moving, doing somersaults.
That is a common occurrence now. So anyone who clings to the dark ages
myth that somehow an unborn child is not a human being really needs to
update their sources and undergo a reality check.
Let me also focus for a moment on some other abortion methods, which
are also acts of violence against children. These are used in the
District of Columbia because they are used elsewhere in the later term.
Consider the abomination called salting out, injecting high
concentrated salt solutions or other poisons into later term babies so
as to procure their death, a very silent but painful death, I would
add, it usually takes about two hours.
I say to my friends on the other side of the issue, once that salt is
pumped into the amniotic fluid and the baby breathes it in, because
babies do breathe in the amniotic fluid to develop the organs of
respiration, that salt has a corrosive effect and chemically poisons
and ultimately kills the infant. The salt solution goes to the brain
and other parts of the body, stops the heart and badly burns the skin
of the baby.
Without the Taylor amendment, without what the distinguished chairman
has done in his committee, we will subsidize these violent acts against
children. Abortion on demand would be subsidized by the public, by the
taxpayers, by monies over which this Congress has a right and, I would
argue, a duty to manifest a concern about.
If we have an opportunity to stand up and save just one child, it is
worth it. No one should so callously mistreat and murder kids.
When you realize that abortion methods are routinely employed that
destroy and maim yet are sanitized by the men and women in white coats,
good people on the other side of this issue who I think will get it
some day. Some day they are going to wake up and say, my God, what kind
of Holocaust have we participated in. Why did we fail to see?
Nationwide the body count is over 36 million and counting.
When you subsidize abortion, the predictable consequence is that more
children do end up dying. The United States and other countries that
are part of the abortion culture are missing kids. They are the lost
generation--kids who will never play soccer or baseball or even take a
first step. When this prohibition on funding went into effect, we went
from over 3000 subsidized abortions per year in the district down to 1.
This amendment has been in effect almost continuously since the early
1980s--thanks to Bob Dornan and now, Mr. Taylor--and it has saved
children's lives.
I just strongly urge a no vote on the Norton amendment. It is a pro-
abortion anti-life amendment. It will subsidize the slaughter of unborn
children.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this is not and should not be a debate
necessarily about the act itself. We all know where some of our
colleagues

[[Page H7355]]

stand on the issue. We know that they take every opportunity to remind
us of where they stand on the issue. We certainly do not need to be
reminded about how special the birth of a child is. We are mothers.
He has got four; I have got two. Most of us have children. We did not
watch somebody else's child being born. We watched our own children
being born. So we do not need to be told about that.
This is about local control. This is about the District of Columbia
that is being trampled on by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
This is about the District of Columbia using its own funds, not Federal
money, for poor women.
This, again, is about whether or not the Congress of the United
States is going to not only exercise its will but simply run over these
citizens and deny them the ability to use their own taxpayer dollars
for those services that they deem important and necessary.
This is about local control. It has been said over and over again,
local control is fine when it acts in ways that some want it to act,
but they do not like it so much when people are providing services they
do not like.
This District deserves more respect than it is being given. There is
something strange about power. Really powerful people really do
understand how to use power. You never, ever step on folks simply
because you have the power to do it. I think this is an abuse of power.
The Members of this House who would deny the District the ability to
be in control of the decisions about its own dollars are disrespecting
and abusing the citizens. Local control, that is what this is all
about, not all of the abortion arguments that are being brought in at
this time.
Let us ask the gentleman who just raised the question, what happens
in his own State? I believe they have State-funded abortions. Why does
he not spend his time there trying to deny? They would run him out of
town. That is why he cannot do it there. But he can come here with the
majority, because they have got more votes, and they can step on this
District, and that is precisely what is happening.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Norton amendment
to the D.C. appropriations bill. The amendment would gut the abortion
funding ban that has been in place in D.C. appropriations for the past
3 years. Although the gentlewoman might claim that her amendment simply
inserts the word ``Federal'' so that the ban would still be in effect
if her amendment were passed, in reality the Norton amendment places no
limitations on the use of D.C. revenues to pay for abortion on demand.
In 1994 and 1995, when then Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly announced that
the District would start paying for abortions on demand, she then
authorized the use of $1 million from the Medical Charities Fund which
was intended to help poor AIDs patients to pay for abortions. So
instead of helping AIDs patients who were in need to live longer
healthier lives, the District chose to use those funds to abort babies.
Then the District could request more Federal funds to make up for the
money they had taken out of the Medical Charities Fund. This type of
bookkeeping is wrong. It is a misuse of funds. It is deceptive.
We have a responsibility. We cannot shirk our responsibility to D.C.
residents. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the
District of Columbia.
Further, Public Law 93-198, commonly known as the home rule law,
charges Congress with the responsibility for the appropriations of all
funds for our Nation's capital.
We are morally responsible for how taxpayer funds are spent in D.C.,
all funds, not just Federal funds, as the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) may argue. It is our responsibility not to use
any taxpayer dollars to fund abortion on demand in the District of
Columbia. I urge a no vote on the Norton amendment.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Furse).
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things that maybe Members are
not quite clear about, first of all, abortion is legal in this country.
That is the first thing.
Secondly, how dare Members talk about women making these choices in
that derogatory fashion. Have they gone through this decision? I have.
I have. How dare they make those disgusting statements.
How many of these Members who are going to vote against this
amendment pay taxes in the District of Columbia? I would like to know
that. I pay taxes in the District of Columbia. I own a home in the
District of Columbia. I am proud to live in the District of Columbia. I
do not live outside of the District. I live right here. My property
taxes, they should be used by the District.
If you are very, very upset about the death of children, I would
suggest you get on the floor and talk about the 10 kids a day who die
from gunshot wounds. I have not seen you out here talking about gun
control, 10 kids a day. Not children in utero, live children.
So I think that this is absolutely a terrific amendment. Remember,
again, that abortion is legal. You may not like it. I bet there are
lots of things you do not like about what is legal. But it is legal. If
you are not a taxpayer, I do not think you have anything to say about
this. I am a taxpayer in the District of Columbia. I think the District
should use its funds for something that is legal.
I will support the gentlewoman's amendment, and I would suggest that
Members keep their hands out of the District of Columbia as much as
possible.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 7 minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman
for allowing me this time.
I was in my office and I was watching this debate. I thought it was
appropriate to come and maybe set the record straight.
I do not take issue with the passion of those on the other side of
the aisle who speak about these issues of abortion in the manner in
which they speak. But I would ask America what the Constitution stands
for. It stands for a representative democracy.
I happen to be against the position that this District of Columbia,
with 600,000 or 700,000 Americans plus, cannot decide for themselves to
use local funds to save the health of the mother. That is what is wrong
with the Republicans' argument. They do not let you know that even if a
mother's health was violated and she could not come forward and be
fertile again because of the carrying of a child that may cause damage
to her health or that was failing or a decision on that basis, even
that could not be included under this position of the Republicans.
But what I have really come to say to America, Americans who live in
California and New York, Houston, Texas or South Carolina, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who comes here
every single day to represent the constituents of this great capital,
cannot vote, cannot stand for her constituents, denied by this
Republican Congress.
How would you like it if your representative from California came
here with an issue of concern needing more money for schools, needing
more money for health care and your representative had no voice in this
House?

{time} 1815

How would my colleagues like it if adoptions in their State were made
illegal? How would they like it if public schools were closed and only
private schools could be supported, as amendments that we will see on
this floor?

[[Page H7356]]

How would my colleagues like it if their State attorney general could
not sue on behalf of the constituents of that great State?
This is a travesty. I am against what is going on in this House. The
people of the District of Columbia are Americans as well. The
gentlewoman deserves the right to vote and deserves the right to be
respected in this House.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
delegate from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time.
The 1980 Supreme Court decision entitled Harris v. McRea upheld the
right of Congress to restrict the use of Federal funds to provide
abortions to poor women, but it clearly asserted that State funds used
to provide abortions for poor women is a State not a Federal decision.
In fact, to quote, it said, ``A participating State is free, if it so
chooses, to include in its own Medicaid plan those medically necessary
abortions for which Federal reimbursement is unavailable.''
The District of Columbia has its own State Medicaid plan. It used
this very language for medically necessary abortions. It really is
wrong for us to be superimposing Federal will on a decision that may be
a difficult one but really needs to be made by the duly-elected
representatives of the citizens of the District of Columbia.
They made that decision because they understand that there are
thousands of women in this city who do not have the resources to
provide for their own medical care and do not have adequate insurance.
Their only resort is the Medicaid program. So they set up a separate
Medicaid program. No Federal funds. Local funds.
That is all the Norton amendment applies to. It does not affect the
Hyde amendment, which applies in all 50 States and the District of
Columbia. We do not do this to any other State.
And while the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) made a very good
argument, I thought, with regard to late-term abortions, the reality
is, from the studies that have been done, they have determined that
most of those late-term abortions, certainly on the part of poor women,
became late term because the women did not have the resources to fund
an abortion early in the pregnancy when it was most appropriate and
when the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade expected them to be
performed.
Ms. NORTON. May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr.
Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has 7 minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, here we are back at the same old stand.
Women, if the Republican Congress has anything to say about it, will
not have the right to choose. They found a place where they could pick
on people who did not even have a representative who could vote, and so
they have taken it away.
Now, anybody, as the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) says, who
has been through this knows what a difficult choice it is. It is even
more difficult for a physician taking care of a patient who realizes
that they cannot recommend the thing that ought to happen.
Now, can these women go to New York State and get an abortion? Well,
if they have the money, they can. Can they go to Illinois; can they go
to Indiana; can they go anywhere else? Yes, but they have to travel,
300, 400, 500, 600 miles away from their home, away from their
physician, to have it done in some place all by themselves.
Why? Simply because the Republicans want to take it out on women.
They want to make them have babies. And then we watch this Congress
operate with welfare reform. We do not want to feed them. We do not
want to take care of them. Poor women who say ``I am not prepared to
have a baby'' or ``I am sick'' or ``It is going to cause a problem for
me and my other children'' or whatever, they have to have a baby or
they have to travel somewhere. Why? Simply because we say they cannot
make their own decisions about their own existence. We, the Congress of
the United States, from our far distant place will make the decision
for them.
Now, California would not tolerate this. There would be an absolute
uproar in this House. Or New York State, or anywhere. Texas, Florida,
any of the States in these United States would not tolerate this, but
we have this helpless bunch that do not have representation on this
floor and we pick on them. That is wrong. We ought to adopt this
amendment.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Norton
amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill. Since the far right has
controlled Congress, there have been a shameful 94 votes attacking
abortion and family planning here on the floor. These are truly cynical
and mean-spirited times.
This same Congress, these same leaders on the Republican side, tell
us that they believe in local control. Yet when it comes to women, when
it comes to the District of Columbia, suddenly the Federal Government
is in control. Congress should be providing women with the tools to
make good educated decisions about their reproductive health. Where is
that support? Where is the support for family planning? Where is the
support for educating youngsters and young women on how not to become
pregnant in the first place?
The Norton amendment is fair and just and I urge my colleagues vote
for it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in strong support of the Norton amendment.
Once again this Congress is attempting to impose yet another
restriction on women's reproductive choices. This bill would prevent
the District of Columbia from using its own locally raised funds to
provide poor women with abortions, as many States, including my home
State of New York, have chosen to do. I strongly support the efforts of
my colleague from the District of Columbia to remove this language and
free the District from a restriction that has not and, indeed, cannot
be placed on any State in this Nation.
So far this year the anti-choice forces of this Congress have
prevented Federal employees, military women overseas, and women in
prison from receiving abortion services. Now we are about to impose a
restriction that would prevent the District from using locally raised
revenues to pay for its needy citizens.
Make no mistake, if the anti-choice leadership of this body could
restrict the use of local funds in the rest of the country, they would
do so in a second. They are attempting to restrict these funds in D.C.
because they can.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in support of the Norton amendment.
I just want to simplify the concept of the amendment. All it does is
allow the District of Columbia to decide whether to use its own locally
raised revenues to pay for Medicaid abortions, while still retaining
the ban on the use of Federal funds for abortions, except in the cases
of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
The bill's language, without this amendment, in effect creates, in
fact it cements into place a two-tiered health care system, prohibiting
poor women from receiving the same reproductive health care services
provided for other District women in their private health care plans.
Because of poverty and a lack of access to adequate health care
services,

[[Page H7357]]

low-income women are more likely to experience high-risk pregnancies
and the need for abortion services. The right to reproductive freedom
is meaningless if access to the full range of services is denied.
All I say is let the District of Columbia decide, just like other
States can make that same decision, to use their own locally raised
revenues to pay for Medicaid abortions.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has the
right to close.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for anything special for the District
of Columbia. I am asking for what this body has already ceded to every
other district in the country. District residents have decided this
question. Cruel consequences could flow, unique consequences will
surely flow, if the District does not have the right to spend its own
money as it sees fit, the way every other district does.
Do not single the people I represent out. I ask my colleagues to not
do to District residents what they cannot do to other Americans.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have this time to address
this issue, and I would want the people who are proposing this
amendment to know that there is no disrespect for me in their position
and their thought on this. We just happen to differ a great deal on
this issue.
I want to clarify something first. I want to read the U.S.
Constitution to my colleagues. It says the Congress is to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the seat of the
government of the United States. It is absolute. It is unequivocal.
The gentlewoman from the District, in her opening comments, said that
the real test of a democracy is whether or not we will allow someone to
make a choice that we would not make. Well, I disagree with that
statement. I think the real test of a democracy is whether or not it
will stick with the moral base under which it was founded.
Abortion is a moral question. I understand what the Supreme Court has
said. What the Supreme Court has said is wrong. It is wrong morally, it
will always be held wrong morally.
We heard the gentlewoman from Oregon talking about this issue, and I
know she made a mistake when she said it, but she said children in
utero. And that is exactly what they are.
The Supreme Court, when they ruled in Roe v. Wade, they said they did
not know when life began. But we do know, and we can now prove the
presence of life. And we never get an answer to this question. In our
country we define death as the absence of brain waves and the absence
of a heartbeat. That is in all 50 States, all Territories and the
District of Columbia.
Scientifically it is proven that at 19 days post conception there is
a heartbeat. We can measure it. We can see it. At 41 days post
conception we can measure the brain waves of our unborn children. Most
women do not know they are pregnant when those two events have
occurred. So we really are faced with a choice. Is our definition of
death wrong, and are we not dead when we do not have a heartbeat or
brain waves? Or are we not alive if we do have a heartbeat and brain
waves?
The reason we are in this quagmire is because we have not addressed
what abortion really is. Abortion is the making of one moral error
because we have previously made a moral error.

{time} 1830

Now, I know the people who believe in choice do not agree with that.
And I respect that. But if we are going to continue to have the
foundation of our society that is based on moral truth, we cannot
disregard the fact that we can measure life.
I personally believe life begins at the moment that a sperm and an
egg unite. I cannot prove it yet. Some day we will prove that and we
will show that to the Supreme Court, and Roe v. Wade then will be
meaningless.
In the meantime, we should do everything we can to protect the lives
of those children in utero, as the gentlewoman from Oregon so rightly
mentioned. We take great pains today to repair unborn babies. We spend
great amounts of our money saving lives in utero, operating on children
while they are still in their mother's womb.
How do I know this? Because I have been involved in it. I have
delivered over 3,500 babies. I have seen every complication and I have
seen the way we sometimes handle those complications by choosing death
of the baby instead of what life is there.
It is not a lack of sensitivity on the part of the ``Republicans''
and the ``pro-life Democrats.'' It is a sensitivity to the very moral
foundation under which our documents of democracy and our Republic were
founded. As we abandon those moral principles, we abandon democracy.
I would urge my colleagues to vote down this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to speak on this important amendment to H.R. 4380. Congresswoman Norton
has proposed an amendment to the D.C. Appropriations Act which will
allow the use of local funds for women seeking abortions. The
Appropriation Act itself prohibits the District from using any funds
for abortions except to save the life of the woman in the case of rape
or incest.
Since 1980, Congress has prohibited the use of federal funds
appropriated to the District of Columbia for abortion services for low
income women with the exception for life endangerment, rape and incest.
This restriction on the ability of the District to use its own locally
raised revenues for abortions usurps the prerogatives of the local D.C.
government and tramples the rights of District residents. No other
jurisdiction is told how to use it locally raised revenue.
The past restriction violates the 1980 Supreme Court decision Harris
v. McRea which upheld the right of Congress to restrict the use of
federal funds to provide abortions to poor women, but clearly asserted
that State funds used to provide abortions for poor women is a state
not a federal decision. This leaves a participating state as free if it
so choose to include in its Medicaid plan those medically necessary
abortions for which federal reimbursement is unavailable.
In the words of Rosann Wisman, executive director of Planned
Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, the women who come to the clinic
have struggled with problems in their lives relating to jobs,
education, marriage, drugs or crime which resulted in a grim
existence--not only for themselves but for the children they have
already borne. Those women deserve the option to choose an abortion by
making a very personal choice not to bring a child into the world which
they feel they can not provide sufficient emotional or financial
support.
Congress must protect these women and allow the District of Columbia
the same choice as all other states to use their own locally raised
revenue for abortions.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Norton Amendment to
the D.C. Appropriations bill which is now before us. I am strongly
opposed to the bill without the Nortion amendment, as it singles out
low-income women in D.C. and steals from them their right to choose.
Many states provide for the women who were left out in the cold by the
Hyde amendment, which limits the use of federal funds for abortion to
instances in which the women is the victim of rape or incest, or in
which the life of the mother is in danger. To use this body's control
over funding for the District of Columbia to make a political point
would be a disgrace.
Our control, as a Federal body, over the local spending of the
District is unique. In no other instance do we wield such a discrete
power over a locality's own discretionary funds. I find it curious that
my colleagues, who purport to be so concerned with maintaining
``state's rights'', are willing to blatantly disregard local automony
when it comes to the District of Columbia.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment so that low-
income women who reside in the District of Columbia may exercise their
right to choose as women in many states can. I regret that I need to
remind this body once again, that the women of America have the right
to choose to have abortions. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment to restore the right of low-income women of D.C. to exert the
same controls over their bodies which other women throughout America
have.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, further proceedings
on

[[Page H7358]]

the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.

The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 133. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits
Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-
1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system
of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether
homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not
limited to registration for the purpose of extending
employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples
on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally
married couples.
Sec. 134. The Emergency Transitional Education Board of
Trustees shall submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, and the Council of the District of
Columbia no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the
end of each month a report that sets forth--
(1) current month expenditures and obligations, year-to-
date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year
expenditure projections versus budget broken out on the basis
of control center, responsibility center, agency reporting
code, and object class, and for all funds, including capital
financing;
(2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and
the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center,
responsibility center, detailed object, and agency reporting
code, and for all funding sources;
(3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000
annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the
budget to which the contract is charged broken, out on the
basis of control center, responsibility center, and agency
reporting code; and contract identifying codes used by the
D.C. Public Schools; payments made in the last month and
year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total
payments made for the contract and any modifications,
extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each
contract in the last month;
(4) all reprogramming requests and reports that are
required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of
Education; and
(5) changes made in the last month to the organizational
structure of the D.C. Public Schools, displaying previous and
current control centers and responsibility centers, the names
of the organizational entities that have been changed, the
name of the staff member supervising each entity affected,
and the reasons for the structural change.
Sec. 135. (a) In General.--The Emergency Transitional
Education Board of Trustees of the District of Columbia and
the University of the District of Columbia shall annually
compile an accurate and verifiable report on the positions
and employees in the public school system and the university,
respectively. The annual report shall set forth--
(1) the number of validated schedule A positions in the
District of Columbia public schools and the University of the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 1998, fiscal year 1999,
and thereafter on full-time equivalent basis, including a
compilation of all positions by control center,
responsibility center, funding source, position type,
position title, pay plan, grade, and annual salary; and
(2) a compilation of all employees in the District of
Columbia public schools and the University of the District of
Columbia as of the preceding December 31, verified as to its
accuracy in accordance with the functions that each employee
actually performs, by control center, responsibility
center, agency reporting code, program (including funding
source), activity, location for accounting purposes, job
title, grade and classification, annual salary, and
position control number.
(b) Submission.--The annual report required by subsection
(a) of this section shall be submitted to the Congress, the
Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the Consensus
Commission, and the Authority, not later than February 15 of
each year.
Sec. 136. (a) No later than October 1, 1998, or within 15
calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
which ever occurs later, and each succeeding year, the
Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees and the
University of the District of Columbia shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees, the Mayor, the District
of Columbia Council, the Consensus Commission, and the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, a revised appropriated funds operating
budget for the public school system and the University of the
District of Columbia for such fiscal year that is in the
total amount of the approved appropriation and that realigns
budgeted data for personal services and other-than-personal
services, respectively, with anticipated actual expenditures.
(b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this
section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that
the Emergency Transition Education Board of Trustees and the
University of the District of Columbia submit to the Mayor of
the District of Columbia for inclusion in the Mayor's budget
submission to the Council of the District of Columbia
pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act, Public Law 93-198, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).
Sec. 137. The Emergency Transitional Education Board of
Trustees, the Board of Trustees of the University of the
District of Columbia, the Board of Library Trustees, and the
Board of Governors of the University of the District of
Columbia School of Law shall vote on and approve their
respective annual or revised budgets before submission to the
Mayor of the District of Columbia for inclusion in the
Mayor's budget submission to the Council of the District of
Columbia in accordance with section 442 of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act, Public Law 93-198, as amended (D.C.
Code, sec. 47-301), or before submitting their respective
budgets directly to the Council.
Sec. 138. (a) Ceiling on Total Operating Expenses.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the total amount appropriated in this Act for operating
expenses for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 1999
under the caption ``Division of Expenses'' shall not exceed
the lesser of--
(A) the sum of the total revenues of the District of
Columbia for such fiscal year; or
(B) $5,216,689,000 (of which $132,912,000 shall be from
intra-District funds and $2,865,763,000 shall be from local
funds), which amount may be increased by the following:
(i) proceeds of one-time transactions, which are expended
for emergency or unanticipated operating or capital needs
approved by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority; or
(ii) after notification to the Council, additional
expenditures which the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia certifies will produce additional
revenues during such fiscal year at least equal to 200
percent of such additional expenditures, and that are
approved by the Authority.
(2) Reserve fund.--To the extent that the sum of the total
revenues of the District of Columbia for such fiscal year
exceed the total amount provided for in paragraph (2)(B), the
Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, with the
approval of the Authority, may credit up to ten percent (10%)
of the amount of such difference, not to exceed $3,300,000,
to a reserve fund which may be expended for operating
purposes in future fiscal years, in accordance with the
financial plans and budgets for such years.
(3) Enforcement.--The Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia and the Authority shall take such steps
as are necessary to assure that the District of Columbia
meets the requirements of this section, including the
apportioning by the Chief Financial Officer of the
appropriations and funds made available to the District
during fiscal year 1999, except that the Chief Financial
Officer may not reprogram for operating expenses any funds
derived from bonds, notes, or other obligations issued for
capital projects.
(b) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in Ceiling.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Mayor,
in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer, during a
control year, as defined in section 305(4) of the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995, approved April 17, 1995 (Public Law 104-8; 109
Stat. 152), may accept, obligate, and expend Federal,
private, and other grants received by the District government
that are not reflected in the amounts appropriated in this
Act.
(2) Requirement of chief financial officer report and
authority approval.--No such Federal, private, or other grant
may be accepted, obligated, or expended pursuant to paragraph
(1) until--
(A) the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
submits to the Authority a report setting forth detailed
information regarding such grant; and
(B) the Authority has reviewed and approved the acceptance,
obligation, and expenditure of such grant in accordance with
review and approval procedures consistent with the provisions
of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995.
(3) Prohibition on spending in anticipation of approval or
receipt.--No amount may be obligated or expended from the
general fund or other funds of the District government in
anticipation of the approval or receipt of a grant under
paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection or in anticipation of the
approval or receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not
subject to such paragraph.
(4) Monthly reports.--The Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall prepare a monthly report setting
forth detailed information regarding all Federal, private,
and other grants subject to this subsection. Each such report
shall be submitted to the Council of the District of
Columbia, and to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 15
days after the end of the month covered by the report.
(c) Report on Expenditures by Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority.--Not later than 20 calendar
days after the end of each fiscal quarter starting October 1,
1998, the Authority shall submit a report to the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of
the House, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate providing an itemized accounting of all non-
appropriated funds obligated or expended by the Authority for
the quarter. The report shall include information on the
date, amount, purpose, and vendor name, and a description of
the services or goods

[[Page H7359]]

provided with respect to the expenditures of such funds.
(d) Application of Excess Revenues.--Local revenues
collected in excess of amounts required to support
appropriations in this Act for operating expenses for the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 1999 under the caption
``Division of Expenses'' shall be applied first to the
elimination of the general fund accumulated deficit; second
to a reserve account not to exceed $250,000,000 to be used to
finance seasonal cash needs (in lieu of short term
borrowings); third to accelerate repayment of cash borrowed
from the Water and Sewer Fund; and fourth to reduce the
outstanding long term debt.
Sec. 139. The District of Columbia Emergency Transitional
Education Board of Trustees shall, subject to the contract
approval provisions of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104-8)--
(1) develop a comprehensive plan to identify and accomplish
energy conservation measures to achieve maximum cost-
effective energy and water savings;
(2) enter into innovate financing and contractual
mechanisms including, but not limited to, utility demand-side
management programs, and energy savings performance contracts
and water conservation performance contracts so long as the
terms of such contracts do not exceed 25 years; and
(3) permit and encourage each department or agency and
other instrumentality of the District of Columbia to
participate in programs conducted by any gas, electric or
water utility of the management of electricity or gas demand
or for energy or water conservation.
Sec. 140. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
rule, or regulation, an employee of the District of Columbia
public schools shall be--
(1) classified as an Educational Service employee;
(2) placed under the personnel authority of the Board of
Education; and
(3) subject to all Board of Education rules.
(b) School-based personnel shall constitute a separate
competitive area from nonschool-based personnel who shall not
compete with school-based personnel for retention purposes.
Sec. 141. (a) Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles.--
(1) None of the funds made available by this Act or by any
other Act may be used to provide any officer or employee of
the District of Columbia with an official vehicle unless the
officer or employee uses the vehicle only in the performance
of the officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes
of this paragraph, the term ``official duties'' does not
include travel between the officer's or employee's residence
and workplace (except in the case of a police officer who
resides in the District of Columbia).
(2) The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
shall submit, by November 15, 1998, an inventory, as of
September 30, 1998, of all vehicles owned, leased or operated
by the District of Columbia government. The inventory shall
include, but not be limited to, the department to which the
vehicle is assigned; the year and make of the vehicle; the
acquisition date and cost; the general condition of the
vehicle; annual operating and maintenance costs; current
mileage; and whether the vehicle is allowed to be taken home
by a District officer or employee and if so, the officer or
employee's title and resident location.
(b) Source of Payment for Employees Detailed Within
Government.--For purposes of determining the amount of funds
expended by any entity within the District of Columbia
government during fiscal year 1999 and each succeeding fiscal
year, any expenditures of the District government
attributable to any officer or employee of the District
government who provides services which are within the
authority and jurisdiction of the entity (including any
portion of the compensation paid to the officer or employee
attributable to the time spent in providing such services)
shall be treated as expenditures made from the entity's
budget, without regard to whether the officer or employee is
assigned to the entity or otherwise treated as an officer or
employee of the entity.
Sec. 142. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds
the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a-10c).
(b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each agency of the Federal or District of
Columbia government shall provide to each recipient of the
assistance a notice describing the statement made in
paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 143. Notwithstanding any provision of any federally
granted charter or any other provision of law, the real
property of the National Education Association located in the
District of Columbia shall be subject to taxation by the
District of Columbia in the same manner as any similar
organization.
Sec. 144. None of the funds contained in this or any other
Act may be used to pay the salary or expenses of any officer
or employee of any department or agency of the District of
Columbia government or of any entity within the District of
Columbia government who fails to provide information
requested by the Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia.
Sec. 145. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the
District of Columbia government (including the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority) for fiscal year 1999 unless--
(1) the audit is conducted (either directly or by contract)
by the Inspector General of the District of Columbia; and
(2) the audit includes a comparison of audited actual year-
end results with the revenues submitted in the budget
document for such year and the appropriations enacted into
law for such year.
Sec. 146. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
authorize any office, agency or entity to expend funds for
programs or functions for which a reorganization plan is
required but has not been approved by the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority (hereafter in this section referred to as
``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.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 57, line 14, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any
point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 147. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule,
or regulation, the evaluation process and instruments for
evaluating District of Columbia public schools employees
shall be a non-negotiable item for collective bargaining
purposes.
Sec. 148. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or any
other officer or entity of the District government to provide
assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks
to require Congress to provide for voting representation in
Congress for the District of Columbia.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Norton

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Norton:
Page 57, strike line 20 and all that follows through page
58, line 2 (and redesignate the succeeding provisions
accordingly).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose gratuitous language that
would forbid the District to use its own funds as part of a lawsuit
testing whether American citizens who happen to live in the Nation's
capital are constitutionally entitled to voting rights in the Congress
of the United States.
I stand here as the only Member who represents taxpaying American
citizens who are denied full representation in the Congress. Are we to
add to this basic denial an attempt to deny the right to seek redress
in the courts, as well? Do we really want to add one basic denial onto
another, first denial of fair representation, then denial of the right
to test that notion in a court of law?
This provision is unworthy of this House unless we want to be in the
company of the authoritarian regimes of the world. The denial of court
redress is gratuitous and futile because the lawsuit is being carried
pro bono by a major downtown law firm. The District's involvement is
marginal, involving only such occasional advice from the City's
Corporation Counsel, as should be responsibly required. It

[[Page H7360]]

would be hard to even calculate the amount of District funds, so great
is the responsibility of the private lawyers.
Please, do not allow history to add to the litany of denials to the
people I represent. Remember the most brazen and the most recent of the
denial of basic rights already on the record of this Congress: that I
won the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole; that the District
Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld that right; that the
Republican majority retracted that right. For good measure, will that
same majority shame itself today by forbidding the right to seek
redress in a court of law, knowing not what that court will find,
having an equal chance to prevail if they disagree with my position?
What is to be gained by keeping the Corporation Counsel altogether
out of the picture? Whom does it hurt if he provides an occasional
piece of advice to those bringing the suit? Not one cent of Federal
funds is involved. The District expenditures supporting this suit are
too small even to calculate. Please remove this provision. Let us be.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, spending the taxpayers'
money, first of all, I somewhat resent the fact that we talk about
D.C.'s money or the Federal tax dollars. We have a budget here that is
$5.2 billion.
The Federal taxpayer picks up about 40 percent of that, over $2
billion of that money, to do ordinarily in the District what the
citizens of the District would have to do. We just picked up, for
instance, $800 million approximately to handle the area's prisoners
that the District had paid for a number of years. And we will continue
to work together in maintaining this city.
So it is disingenuous to talk about what the local residents pay
versus the national taxpayers pay because what the national taxpayer
pays usually is in place of services that the local taxpayers have to
pay.
I am also a taxpayer here, as are most of us in this room. Every time
we eat, every time we have lodging, D.C. has a tax rate in sales that
is twice what it is across the river. They have a local income tax
twice as greater as it is across the river. And so, most of us are
paying a property tax or sales tax or other tax here in D.C.
Now, I can share the desire of the gentlewoman to bring forth her
argument. But there is a proper way to bring it forth. It is to bring
the motion before the Congress of the United States, have a debate,
have a vote.
If the Congress decides for a Constitutional amendment, it will go
out to three-fifths of the States and they will decide whether or not
the District of Columbia will be changed from what the framers of the
Constitution intended, that is a Federal district, a special
consideration, we have them throughout the country in military bases,
in other areas, where the Federal Government chose specifically to have
total control in that area, or whether or not we will have a State or
some other type of organization. And that is the proper way to do it.
What the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is
asking us to do is to spend U.S. taxpayers' money to bring forth an
argument that the same U.S. taxpayers will have to answer on the other
side, and that I think is a waste of the taxpayers' money when we have
a solution to this problem.
I am not necessarily saying that I would vote for it, but it is a
solution. It is a way that anytime the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) wants to bring that before this body, we will
debate it, vote on it, and if it moves forward it will go out to the
people to see whether or not the Constitution will be changed. It is
wasteful for us to sue ourselves on this issue year after year.
I would point out that the Corporation Counsel's office has increased
this year from 271 attorneys up to 503 attorneys in the District of
Columbia. We have increased the number of attorneys by 232 members. And
to spend the millions of dollars that it will take to fund this type of
argument is I think unjust to the people of the United States and the
city of Washington, especially with the number of needs we have in this
country and in this city.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Norton amendment.
I hope that we can stay on the track of what we are talking about. We
are talking about whether any funds in this bill, and in this case
District funds, can be used for a basic right; and that is to bring a
lawsuit to fruition in court, the right to be heard by an impartial
arbitrator and make a decision.
This language prohibits the District from aiding anyone who wants to
bring a lawsuit on the merits of representation of the District. It has
nothing to do with the fact that the Counsel's office has gone from 200
to 400, or 300 to 500.
If, in fact, as the chairman says, he thinks it is inappropriate,
then the court will not take jurisdiction over it. But for this
Congress to say that the District cannot exercise a fundamental right
of our Constitution and our society to allow someone to go to court to
settle what they perceive is a grievance is, basically, wrong.
Now, I understand the fact that Federal money should not be used. But
it goes much further than that. It should not be our individual
opinions that matter in this body. It should be, basically, what the
Constitution says and, basically, what is fair.
It is unfair to not allow the District to petition the court, and
that is exactly what this does, notwithstanding what our individual
opinions are. That is the reason we have the judiciary to make these
decisions, and that is the reason I support the Norton amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, again I find myself taking the floor to support the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) in her efforts
to keep Members of this House from running roughshod over the District
of Columbia. I support her efforts to strike the bar to the use of
local funds again.
It is absolutely amazing to me that we can in this House, on this
floor, representatives of the people who sent us here because they
believe in representative government, they believe in democracy and
they believe in the right of the citizens to have a voice and to be
represented, find myself on the floor of Congress arguing to allow the
District of Columbia residents the right to go to court.
On July 4, a group of 51 District residents filed a petition to
Congress declaring that they lack political representation in the House
and the Senate. The D.C. Corporation Counsel signed the petition, and
they have a law firm that is going to, basically, agree to represent
the petitioners pro bono.
It is inconceivable that a serious legislator of any stripe could
come on this floor with legislation that says, citizen, I do not care
what you are attempting to do. Citizen of the District of Columbia, you
do not have the same rights as other citizens in this Nation. We are
going to use our awesome power to deny you the right to go to court on
a very fundamental question of whether or not you have representation
and that representation can vote in the House and in the Senate to
represent the people of the District of Columbia.
We know what the long struggle has been in this District, and we know
that this representative, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton), worked hard to be able to exercise her right to vote on
the floor.
My colleagues took it away from her. They literally came into power
and snatched away from this representative the right to vote in this
House. Again, this abuse of power.
I am almost ashamed for them that they would say not only to this
representative that she indeed cannot represent her constituents on the
floor but to tell the residents who organized and who petitioned that
they are going to shut down their right to go to court.
Every American citizen deserves the right to fight, to struggle, and
to go to our court system and to ask that they be heard. It is
inconceivable that they would use their power in this way. But since
they have decided one more time to do that, let me remind them that
this is beyond the question of local control.

{time} 1845

But again, you are saying that they cannot use their own funds, the
taxpayers' money, not Federal money,

[[Page H7361]]

they cannot use their own funds to petition and to go into court on a
very basic and fundamental right that most citizens in this country
enjoy without thought. This again is a local argument.
I would ask any Member on the other side of the aisle who is opposed
to this amendment to justify to your voting constituents, to justify to
your constituents who see the court as something that is guaranteed to
them in this democracy for use when they feel they need to go there to
be heard, to get an opportunity to voice their opinions and to petition
their government, I dare you to make an argument that would indeed
conclude that somehow it is all right for your citizens in your
district, in your State, in your city or your town but somehow it is
not good enough for the citizens of this District.
Again, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a
woman that you must look in the face every day and refer to as the
gentlelady, a woman whom you say you respect, a woman who is an
attorney, who is a professor, who gets on this floor with facts, with
the kind of background and knowledge that is necessary to represent her
people, you would deny her and take it away from her with this kind of
action.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as I understand this, this would strike the entire
section 148 which simply says that none of the funds contained in this
act will go to provide assistance for any petition drive or civil
action which seeks to require Congress to provide for voting
representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.
Now, there is nothing in this bill or nothing that is in the language
here or in the funding that says that this cannot occur. If they want
to go forward with some petition drive or with some civil action, there
is nothing in this act that would prevent that. The people of the
District of Columbia are completely free under the Constitution and
under the laws of this land to pursue that agenda. What this simply
says is we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund both sides of
the argument. We are not going to let people who may disagree be
compelled to provide the dollars to argue both sides of this. In fact,
it was Thomas Jefferson that said, ``To compel a man to furnish
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he
disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' Today we would call it wrong
and say to compel a man or a woman, we would change it a little
differently, but basically what we are saying is that we are not going
to push ideas, force people to push ideas that they do not believe in.
But yet there is still the freedom here. There is complete freedom to
move these arguments forward, we are just not going to have the
taxpayers fund through the District of Columbia.
There has been some question on the floor today just who is a
taxpayer of the District of Columbia. The chairman of the subcommittee
on D.C. appropriations pointed out aptly that if you live here in the
District, if you eat here in the District, if you have some exchange,
you do have some vested interest. Many of us have paid parking tickets
in the District. We have contributed to the overall funds that are
involved here. But we may not want to use these contributions to fund
this type of effort.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DIXON. Is the gentleman suggesting that each individual taxpayer
has the right to make a decision about the collective wisdom of the
D.C. government? In other words, if I do not like something, I should
just come to the floor and say, ``They can't do that anymore because I
own property here"? Is that what you are saying?
Mr. TIAHRT. Taking back my time, what I am saying is that there is
nothing in this legislation that prohibits people living in the
District of Columbia from moving forward with a petition drive or any
civil action requiring Congress to provide for voting representation in
Congress for the District of Columbia.
Mr. DIXON. If the gentleman will yield further, maybe I interpret it
different, but I assume that some officers of the District live in the
District. This says that any officer or entity of the District shall
not provide assistance for the petition.
Mr. TIAHRT. There is nothing that prohibits the people of the
District of Columbia, the people in here, to go ahead forward with this
petition drive or with this civil action.
Mr. DIXON. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just read it
differently. I assume there are officers that live in the District and
in reading the plain language here, it says if you are an officer of
the District.
Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, the reading is correct. But these are
people who are paid, their salaries are paid by the taxpayers in the
District of Columbia. And it follows with the same logic that none of
these funds contained shall be used for this petition drive or this
civil action. I want to make one last point. We are not going to
prohibit such action, we are just going to say the taxpayer funds will
not argue both sides of the case.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. Many
of these amendments go at the very heart of home rule, none more than
this, and this is broader, I would suggest. We will argue an amendment
at some point in time tonight where I will disagree with the
gentlewoman, and I will disagree on the proposition that it affects
individuals outside of the District of Columbia. My position has
historically been if legislation affects people inside the District of
Columbia, that is for the District of Columbia government to decide.
It seems to me that this amendment deals with one of the most basic
rights that Americans have. It is a unique right. It is a right that
conservatives and liberals and moderates, Republicans and Democrats,
those from the east and west, north and south all should adhere to with
a religious passion. That right is articulated in the first amendment
of the United States Constitution. It says, not only do we have the
right to freely speak our views. That is an extraordinary right when
you compare it with the abridgment of that right around the world.
Those of us who have had the opportunity to travel, not just to the
Soviet Union but to nations that espouse democracy and are in fact
democracies but who limit, far more than we do, the right of those in a
democracy to speak, to articulate their view, to address the issues of
the day, and try to make their point made to their fellow citizens. Our
Founding Fathers in the first amendment thought that right so
fundamental that they articulated it first. The first amendment
probably is one of the most historic provisions of any political
document in the world.
It is significant, I think, that the last phrase of that amendment
says this, or let me read more of it: ``Congress shall make no law, no
law, no law, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble.'' And
then they concluded this historic amendment with this phrase: ``And to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.''
There is no more basic right in a democracy for the people than the
right to petition their government for the redress of grievances. That
is what this section speaks to and tries to, by law, impede, deny and
diminish.
I would hope that in this greatest body of democracy in the world, in
this palace of freedom, this center of democracy, we would not only not
say to the District of Columbia government but we would say to no one
in America that we will pass a law with its obvious intent of
undermining your ability to petition this government and your fellow
citizens for the redress of grievances. Clearly what section 148 tries
to do is to diminish that most fundamental of rights. For that reason
alone, I suggest to my colleagues it should be rejected.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words. I am going to try to be brief and speak in support of
the Norton amendment on this. The

[[Page H7362]]

amount of money involved here is minuscule. There is no savings to the
taxpayer. We are talking about the Corporation Counsel or some other
District entity having the right to coordinate a lawsuit, to touch it
up, to go through briefs that is being done by a pro bono law firm. So
the money involved here is nothing. Let us get this straight.
We go to Hong Kong, we go to China, we stand in the face of Jiang
Zemin and we look at him and say you are diminishing Democratic rights
in Hong Kong because you are not letting all of the participants
participate and we do not like the way they have structured the
electorate. But here in Washington, we do not give our Nation's capital
the right to vote in the Senate or in the House of Representatives.
Now, the Congress treats the District of Columbia differently than
other entities. There are long, historical reasons for this. I think
reasonable people can disagree over what that voting representation
ought to be, what it is today, what it was in the 103rd Congress when
there was a semblance of a vote for the delegate along with other
delegates and what it was when Republicans took control, but even then
it was not a full vote and there were constitutional prohibitions or
perceived constitutional prohibitions that would have not allowed the
delegate from D.C. to have full voting rights. But what are we afraid
of, allowing the city to go to court to try to find out and define what
their constitutional rights are for voting representation in the House?

{time} 1900

If the Constitution gives the citizens a right to a Member of
Congress, so be it. What are we afraid of? That is a constitutional
guarantee they should not be denied. If it simply defines a mechanism
whereby Congress can grant that voting right without having to go
through the constitutional process, perhaps by statute or House rule,
so be it. Then we can act accordingly. What are we afraid of?
It is one thing to be able to go and say to them they cannot have a
vote on the House floor. We have had many debates here, and reasonable
people can agree or disagree. But it is another thing to not allow the
city to petition, to in any way participate in a lawsuit that would
help define a mechanism where they may be going about achieving these
rights.
I support the Norton amendment. I hope it is successful, and I think
it would just give the city basic guarantees that every other citizen
and noncitizen in this country enjoy under the Constitution.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 149. The Residency Requirement Reinstatement Amendment
Act of 1998 (D.C. Act 12-340) is hereby repealed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Norton

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Norton:
Page 58, strike lines 3 through 5 (and redesignate the
succeeding provision accordingly).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the outright repeal of the District's
residency law in this bill is an abuse of congressional power that even
Congress has been reluctant to do. This repeal would mark only the
fourth time that a District law has been overturned in 24 years of home
rule. Despite the fact that this residency law does not threaten the
job of a single suburban worker employed by the District Government,
regional Members have placed the repeal in the D.C. appropriation bill.
The residency bill applies prospectively to new hires only, and even
then a suburban worker could be hired so long as he or she moves to the
city within 6 months. The strongest reason against a residency law has
been eliminated by the requirements in the law itself. Residency may be
waived for hard-to-fill positions. In the District today this could
range from modestly paid 911 operators, where problems of competence
and sick leave have been found, to technology talent that may be in
short supply. To assure work force quality, waivers could be exercised
for entire units, even agencies.
Mr. Chairman, the residency repeal in this bill is selfish special
interest legislation, pure and simple. The repeal is opposed by the
Control Board for financial reasons. The residency law would strengthen
the District's economy because city employees would pay city taxes,
spend most of their disposable income within the city, and improve
their own neighborhoods. Suburban employees earn 60 percent of the
total annual salaries paid to District employees. If District employees
who live in Maryland, Virginia and other States paid D.C. income taxes,
the income tax revenue generated from their payments would be almost
$60 million.
Most of the employees about whom residents and Congress alike so
often complain are not District residents. Almost 45 percent live in
Maryland; 8.5 percent live in Virginia. If more of them lived where
they work, then, as the courts upholding residency laws have found,
absenteeism would be reduced and employee performance improved because
employees would have a stake in their community.
Half of all American cities with a population of over 500,000 have
residency laws, and 11 States have laws mandating that local government
employees live in the State. Regional Members have succeeded in denying
the city the right to tax commuters who use our services. Now they want
to deny us the right to have employees who live in the District and
would automatically pay taxes. They want it all their way.
Mr. Chairman, it takes real special interest, tunnel vision to repeal
a provision that does them no harm but could help a city coming out of
fiscal crisis. This repeal is not just a slap in the face, Mr.
Chairman, it is a fist in the gut. No city on the planet deserves to be
denied the right to decide whom to employ and whom to pay. We reach a
new low with this repeal.
Let this democratically passed measure by the D.C. City Council
stand.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I join the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) in her statement. Certainly I support the striking of this
provision. It was in the full committee that this measure was added.
And I know there is a strong feeling on both sides, but throughout
this country we have major cities that have residency requirements.
This act did not, for instance, affect established workers. It only is
for the new employees, new hires. It also provided a broad exemption
for hard-to-fill positions.
And so the City Council has asked for something in this case that is
truly a local consideration. In many of the items where money was
involved, the Congress has, I repeat, the Congress has the duty to
respond if it feels the money should not be spent. But clearly in
residency requirements this should be an authorizing decision, and the
authorizing committee did not act upon it, and the Committee on
Appropriations should not.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the implication is that the suburbs around the District
of Columbia are acting in their own parochial self-interest and not in
the interests of the District of Columbia.
I rise to let my colleagues know that from my perspective we are
doing just the opposite. The fact is that if this residency requirement
were to become law, it is the suburbs who will be benefited because we
will have an even larger pool of the most qualified experienced
applicants for the kinds of municipal jobs that the District of
Columbia needs. We are not suffering from a lack of employment
opportunities, certainly not in the suburbs. We have less than a 2
percent unemployment rate. We do not need this residency requirement to
be repealed, but the District of Columbia does.

[[Page H7363]]

The District of Columbia needs to be able to draw upon the widest
personnel pool that it can so that it can get the very best people
working for D.C. That is what we hope to accomplish by preventing a
residency requirement, because the District of Columbia is a city of
only 500,000 people. It is not like Chicago that has 8 million people.
They have a residency requirement. That works. Chicago doesn't have a
restricted pool of personnel from which they can draw.
Let us talk about one particular job that many people might cite,
that of law enforcement officer. If a law enforcement officer has just
graduated from college, and I know in the suburbs, hopefully it is the
case in the District of Columbia too, they look for college graduates
because there is a lot of demand for law enforcement jobs now. We have
raised the caliber, and the compensation.
When that young law enforcement person tries to determine what is in
their best interest, they look to the future. They are not like some
highly paid professional athlete that figures they can go with one team
for a few years and then move on to another one, whoever offers them
the right money. They want to sink in their roots. They want to make a
commitment to a community.
When they look at the District of Columbia and make that
determination, that if they work for D.C. they will never be able to
choose where they want to live, they are not going to look any longer
at D.C., they are going to look at the suburbs, and we are going to be
able to get even more people applying for our jobs. That is not in
D.C.'s interest, it is only in our interest.
Let me give you a specific example. We have a Capitol police force of
highly qualified professional people. We lost two who in fact were
typical of the professionalism, the quality of people that work for us.
One of the reasons that we have such high quality is they know they can
choose to live anywhere they want. They have all those options open to
them.
The two people that were lost in that tragedy happened to live
outside of the District of Columbia; one of them because they wanted a
larger garden, another who lived down in Lake Ridge.
We would never impose a residency requirement on the Capitol Hill
police force because we know that we want the best people available
working for us, protecting us. If you impose a residency requirement on
the District of Columbia Government, D.C. will never have the best
people working for their citizens. We know that. It only makes common
sense.
There are far better ways to address this problem, if there is a
problem. One is to give incentives. In Alexandria, we do that. We give
them discounts on home purchases. Give them a number of things to make
D.C. more attractive. Work with the carrot, not the stick. This is a
punitive provision that will hurt D.C. in the long run. I urge the
Members to reject this amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, this may be selfish and special interest legislation
but it is not on the part of suburban Members. This is an election year
in the city and every election year people are coming up, whipping up
the electorate, and now it is trying to promise city residents that
they are going to get jobs that they may or may not otherwise be
qualified for, and it is a sham, and it is a shame.
The District Government does not operate well. I do not think anyone
can sit here and say we would not have had legislation that imposes a
Control Board on the city and taken some of the other stringent actions
that the authorizing and appropriations committees have taken if the
city were functioning well.
The potholes are unfilled, applications and permits are routinely
lost, garbage not picked up. To solve these problems, the city needs
the very best workers they can find to make the government operational
once again.
If the city restricts its hiring to the 20 percent of the
metropolitan region that resides within the confines of the Nation's
Capital, their chances for hiring and retaining the best and the
brightest, the people they need to man their fire department, their
police department, to operate permits, to run their computers, to work
in the hospitals, are greatly diminished, because their applicant pool
is diminished from 100 percent of the eligible employees and trained
and qualified employees in the metropolitan region to only 20 percent
of those individuals.

{time} 1915

My friend from Virginia is absolutely correct, this amendment does
not help the suburbs. Our unemployment rate is less than 2 percent. It
does, however, open up some unneeded regional wounds, where we have
tried as a region to work together, where we in the suburbs have voted
for tax breaks for the city that we do not get in the suburbs that in
some way give the city some advantages we would not have. We have
worked to try to build a convention center downtown, instead of taking
it out to the suburbs, because we recognize that bringing this city
back is critical, not just for our Nation's capital, but critical for
the metropolitan region as well.
We have 19,000 jobs today in Northern Virginia that we cannot find
qualified employees to fill. These are high-tech jobs, average salary
over $40,000 a year. This amendment does not hurt the suburbs, but this
amendment does hurt the District of Columbia.
Ultimately, to make this a livable city, the city solves its
population exodus problems by being an attractive city, where people
want to live; not coming to the city because they have to to get a job,
or to relocate here to keep their job because they cannot find one
somewhere else. Because what you will find is people working for the
city, or who otherwise may be attracted to come to the city, will find
preferable jobs where they live, where they can get a good education
for their children, where they can live in safe neighborhoods that they
are not getting in the city.
But to make the city school system better, you need to attract the
best teachers. To make the neighborhood safe, you need to attract the
best police officers, and to do that by diminishing the pool of
applicants to one-fifth of the eligible people in the metropolitan
region greatly hinders that effort.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to my good friend, the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Does the gentleman realize that within the bill is a
liberal waiver provision?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. The gentleman has read the bill and is
familiar with the waiver provision.
Ms. NORTON. Why does that not deal with the gentleman's problem with
the quality of the work force?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, because my
experience with waiver provisions has been that it not only creates a
huge paperwork backlog, there is the question in the mind of applicants
whether they can achieve the waiver, there is a huge time lag, and when
it comes to attracting quality people, you need to move very quickly
sometimes to get the people who otherwise could take 2 or 3 or 4
different jobs. They just do not work. It sounds great on paper, but
operationally, these are just not successful.
Finally, let me just say, we want to bring people to the Nation's
capital because they want to live there, not because that is the only
way they can keep their job. We want people who want to live here
because it is a safe city, because they can get their kids an education
here, because the garbage is picked up, because the city will be able
to attract the best and brightest from throughout the metropolitan
region.
This legislation does not allow that. This says only 1 in 5 are
eligible to come and work in the city, despite these waivers provisions
and others that are not administered very well. In fact, the political
pressure is not to grant waivers from some of the groups within the
city, and it just does not satisfy the requirement.
So, despite I think the best intentions of my friend from the
District of Columbia, I have to rise to oppose the amendment, and ask
my friends to join with me in trying to make the Nation's capital a
model city throughout the country. Let us get the best employees we
can. Let us not put these artificial restrictions on who can work for
the city.

[[Page H7364]]

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment. Let
me explain why.
We are all products of our environment. My dad was a Philadelphia
policeman for 20 years. He had to live in the City of Philadelphia. My
dad wanted the opportunity for a garden. He wanted to raise his own
vegetables and tomatoes, and just never had that opportunity. We never
could move out of the city. In fact, I can still hear him tell my mom,
``Virginia,'' he said, ``when I retire, we are going to move out of the
city and we will get that garden.'' My mom died at age 52, and they
never got outside of the city. My dad did, by himself, after he
retired.
Secondly, you are going to lose some of the best people. My daughter
has worked in the City of Washington at 14th and Belmont in one of the
toughest areas for four years, taught then for a year in the Gage-
Eckington School, and lived in the State of Virginia, but she had a
commitment to the District of Columbia. She and her husband and other
young staffers up here on the Hill are opening a school in the District
of Columbia, because they are committed to the District, they care
about the District.
The District ought to be a better place, and it can be a better
place, but do not put a residency requirement on it to say that people
that happen to live in Crystal City or Chevy Chase or some other place
cannot participate and be active.
Thirdly, in Philadelphia, when you had the residency requirements and
everybody had to live in the city, you found cases where people were
not completely truthful. They would give their sister's address or
their brother's address or somebody else's address just so they could
have that place out in the suburbs or the country, but still could
comply.
Fourthly, it divides the area. We need things that bring us together.
Arlington, Fairfax, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, no one
has a residency requirement. You can work in Fairfax County and live in
the District of Columbia or any other place. So we do not want anything
that divides us, that puts up barriers. We want things that bring us
together.
Lastly, where you live is so important. You may have a child that has
special ed needs, and you may pick a particular school or particular
school district because they have the program for your child, and maybe
that is not in the District or some other place. You may be very active
in your church or synagogue or temple and want to live there so you can
participate and do all those things. That does not mean you have to
live in the District of Columbia. Your wife or your husband may work
somewhere else, and you may want to divide the difference, whereby he
or she can drive 30 miles that way and you can drive 30 miles this way,
whereby you can live in a central location whereby both of you can have
the job.
Lastly, this would be a bad amendment for the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia does not need this. I urge colleagues on both
sides, deleting this amendment was supported on a bipartisan basis,
Republicans and Democrats, in the committee.
I would ask everyone, how many of your policemen and firemen can live
in many homes in the District of Columbia? They cannot afford it.
Therefore, many that I know live in Woodbridge and live in Dale City,
and some of them live in the western part of my district, in Clark
County and Winchester, and drive all the way in, and work very
difficult hours, because you know policemen work around the clock. Let
us not take that opportunity away from policemen and from firemen and
from teachers.
Lastly, the waiver, the waiver idea, the big boss gets the waiver. He
is the person that you need. So then you have a division where the boss
can live in Fairfax or Chevy Chase, but everybody else has to live in
the District. So the waiver is a division. It divides, it separates
out.
So I strongly urge Members on both sides, for the policemen, the
firemen, the teachers and everybody else, oppose the Norton amendment
and allow people to live wherever they want to live.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, of all the arguments I have heard against the residency
law, what I have heard on the floor today pretty much points up the
weakness of the rationale of those who have offered these arguments. It
would appear to me that there are certain inferences that have been
made here today regarding the residency law.
One inference is that D.C. residents are incompetent. I say to you
that they are not. D.C. residents are not incompetent. They have the
same kind of ability that people who live in suburbia have. The
chairman of the subcommittee did not agree to this. This amendment was
put on in the Committee on Appropriations. Therefore, at this point I
speak in support of the amendment.
The other inference that I hear is that this amendment is bad for the
District. Nothing could be further from the truth. The arguments are
superfluous. How can you take an amendment that says weaken our tax
base? That is good for you, to weaken our tax base? Take away some
instance of our home rule. That is good for you.
It is so paternalistic, until it is aggravating. It is saying to the
residents of the District of Columbia, you are not good enough. We live
in suburbia. Where did this meritocracy come, that you must live in
suburbia to be able to serve in the District of Columbia?
Think of it this way, Mr. Chairman. Suppose you had a residency law
here and people needed jobs. They would come into D.C., they would
remain in D.C., they would work because they would be able to gain a
living here. If they want to live in suburbia, that is fine. There is
nothing wrong with that. But that is a choice that the individual would
make. If any one of us had the ability to make a choice and in making a
living, we would.
I have been through many situations in my life where I had to make
some choices, and that choice, naturally, would lead, number one, to my
economic betterment, or it would lead to my social betterment, or my
political betterment. The same way with suburbia.
Now, why is it that 60 percent of the people who work in this
District live outside the District? It is a drain on the District to
have that here. Why is it do they live there? If that is the case, then
it appears from the emphasis that is made here that we need these
people who live outside the District. If the District did not have the
firemen and police and all of that, that this place would go down. It
would go down.
I will tell you how it would go down. If you continue to have those
people draining it, and every afternoon running to suburbia, because
the people in the District are not good enough to hold their own jobs,
to keep their own tax base, this whole thing, Mr. Speaker, that is why
I did not want to speak, it sounds just like colonialism. ``We know
what is best for you. You cannot know what is better for you. You are
not educated enough. You have some ethnic differences, so we do not
think you can carry these jobs.''
I do not care what you say, Mr. Speaker, these are the inferences
that are here. When you have this many people staying outside of the
District, if they had a real emergency here, it would take them forever
to face it, because they have got to call every suburb in this whole
area to get them back into the city because of the demographics.
So if it is good enough for other cities that have had financial
problems, it is good enough for the District.
This whole thing has a lot to do with unemployment. Do you realize
that where people are poor, they do not have jobs, that there are
disturbances? This thing is feeding disturbances in the District of
Columbia. Pull the jobs out. Local people do not have a job, so that is
unemployment. Then we come to the Congress, put a stain glass window
behind us, and we begin to dictate or mandate what should happen in
this District.
This is wrong, Mr. Chairman. There is nothing here to say to the
people, look, you can build your own government, you can be proud of
your own government.
Weed out the people not doing the right thing in D.C. Let us build a
strong government here. This is the

[[Page H7365]]

Nation's capital. We are setting a very bad record. It is so important.
The Supreme Court has supported this. If it were wrong
constitutionally, then the Supreme Court would not have supported it.
So the whole thing means there have to be some order in this
community. I think one thing the District should be given is a
residency requirement.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot remember a time since I have served in the
Congress of the United States, since 1981, that there has been any more
supported delegation in the Washington metropolitan area of the
District of Columbia than this time.

{time} 1930

In our suburban delegation, there are no D.C. baiters or bashers.
They are uniformly supporters of a healthy, vibrant region that we call
the Washington metropolitan area.
The previous speaker is one of my very close friends, but I tell her,
ethnic inferences go both ways. There are all types of ethnic
identities that may or may not be welcome.
I will tell my friends and my colleagues, there are some 4.3 million
people in this metropolitan area, and 3.8 million of us live outside of
Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capitol. It is a distinct and unique
city. It is the Nation's city.
Let me tell the Members how the Nation's city came about. Our early
forefathers decided to have a Capitol here, and they asked some States
to donate some land. They did so. Maryland donated all the land on
which the District of Columbia now resides. Virginia donated some, and
it was reverted to the State of Virginia.
Frankly, we in Maryland think it is very ironic that we would donate
land, the Nation's Capitol would grow thereon, and subsequently, we
would be told, you need not apply.
Let me tell the Members where there is not a residency requirement,
where all those who live in this metropolitan area are welcome to apply
and to work: In Montgomery County, Maryland, the District of Columbia
residents are welcome to apply and work; Prince Georges County,
Maryland, District of Columbia residents are welcome and can work;
Fairfax County, the District of Columbia residents are welcome and can
work there, while at the same time choosing where they want to raise
their families, where they want to send their kids to school.
There has been some discussion of a waiver. Yes, there are waivers.
The distinguished gentlewoman from California, who probably knows more
about this issue than anybody on the floor and with whom I was involved
for some period of time, discussed this matter during the 1980s and
early 1990s. We had a lot of discussions.
Guess what, it was the District of Columbia City Council that decided
to repeal the then existing residency requirement. Why? Because it was
replete with exceptions. It was replete with exceptions for the special
people, mostly who earned a lot of money. It is the average worker who
does not have much clout who was squeezed by this, who cannot choose
where to raise their children, where to grow that garden.
This is America's Capitol. Every United States citizen ought to be
welcome, wherever they choose to live, to work in the government of the
Nation's Capitol. That is why Americans come to Washington, they are
proud of their Capitol, not just the 1,535,000.
Do they have a unique ability and responsibility? They do. Do I
support that? I do. But when they say to the rest of us, you need not
apply, stay out, yes, I say to the gentlewoman from Florida, ethnic
inferences run both ways. They run both ways, I say to the gentlewoman.
It is not healthy for either side to exacerbate those inferences, I
tell my friend.
Yes, the two police officers gunned down defending America's House of
freedom, one lived in Woodbridge, Virginia, in the District of the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and one in the District of my
friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Al Wynn), because they wanted
to raise their children in a suburban setting. But they wanted to come
into Washington and defend freedom's House.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to reject this amendment, and allow every
American to be welcome to work in their Nation's Capital.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to restoring the
residency requirement in the District of Columbia. Requiring new
workers to live in the District would make nonresidents second-class
citizens, and really, could only endanger public safety and education.
When I first came to Congress in the 1980s, the District government
was already showing signs of the deficiencies that marked the beginning
of a spiraling economic crisis. Services in the District were
deteriorating, businesses were relocating, and middle class residents
were moving to the suburbs in search of lower taxes, safer streets, and
better schools. From 1990 to 1995, the District lost more than 22,000
households, most of them middle-class taxpayers.
Many of the people who moved to the suburbs have bought homes, and if
this residency requirement is implemented, these people will be looking
for alternatives to working for the District, and we will lose many
competent employees.
This proposal will divert attention from the more important issues
that affect the District. If we work hard to make the streets safer and
improve the schools, those former residents will want to move back to
the District, closer to their jobs, and others will move into the
District of Columbia. Indeed, we are trying to do that.
As mention was made, we in the region and others in this Congress
really do feel that we have added luster and vitality to the District
of Columbia, and it is going up, up, up.
Many of the workers who do live in the District are underserved and
undereducated, at this point. I think we have to work very hard to make
sure that we have good training programs for District residents, so
they will meet the needs of the changing work force.
I also want to point out that this amendment is really rather myopic,
because when we look around in Montgomery County, Maryland, that I
represent, Prince Georges' County, other parts of Maryland and in the
State of Virginia, we do not have any residency requirements.
We have many people, many people who live in the District of
Columbia, who live in the District of Columbia but who work in the
neighboring areas. In fact, we have many who even live in West Virginia
that come into Maryland or other places to work, but there are no
residency requirements. So this would be unfair. The District needs the
best employees that can be found to meet the city's day-to-day needs.
If in fact we were to limit the pool of workers to residents of the
city, we shortchange the District of Columbia, the Capital city, and
the people who live there.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, not
because I oppose the District of Columbia. Quite to the contrary, I
consider myself a friend of the District of Columbia, and more
importantly, as a resident of the suburbs, I believe the citizens of
the suburbs consider themselves friends of the District of Columbia.
Earlier today I stood on this floor and I said that we ought to allow
the District of Columbia to manage its affairs. I and all of us in the
Washington metropolitan area have worked closely with the District of
Columbia to support the District. We believe that they should manage
their affairs.
But when the District of Columbia contemplates erecting a wall and
stretching outside of its jurisdiction to say to those people who live
across the line, so to speak, no, you cannot come in, then I have a
serious concern. That is why I am here to object to the Norton
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I know it is tempting to establish a residency
requirement. We in Prince Georges County contemplated it, and
Montgomery County has contemplated it. It is always good to say, why do
we not keep all these jobs here to ourselves. But that is not a sound
policy, and thankfully, the jurisdictions that I have mentioned
resisted that temptation and said, we

[[Page H7366]]

will have an open door policy. People can live where they want to live,
and bring their resources and talents into our jurisdiction and work.
That is what we think the District of Columbia ought to do.
The citizens who live outside of the District of Columbia and work in
D.C. contribute a great deal. They spend a lot of money here. They
support art, culture. They contribute to the District of Columbia. I
often see my colleague, and say that I am in the District of Columbia
and I am spending an hour, I am supporting the District's tax base.
Those folks who work in the District of Columbia do that on a regular
basis.
One of the things I would have to mention in this debate is that the
folks that live in the suburbs are not ``them'' and ``they.'' For the
most part, they are people who used to live in the District of
Columbia, who perhaps even go to church in the District of Columbia,
have families in the District of Columbia, and travel out to the
suburbs to find a place to live with more room or a different type of
lifestyle, but still have a great affinity and love for the District of
Columbia. So the notion that there is some sort of division between the
people out there and the people in here I think is absolutely false.
One of the interesting ironies is that, and it was pointed out
earlier, that the ``big bosses,'' the top level appointees, already are
subject to residency requirements. That is to say, if you make the big
bucks, you can be required to live within the city. But for the average
person, the fireman, schoolteacher, whatever, if they can find a better
housing value in the suburbs they ought to be able to take advantage of
that. They ought not to be considered to be somehow colonial in their
thinking or abandoning the District of Columbia.
The other thing I would add is that this policy could cut both ways.
There are a lot of opportunities in the suburbs. Not only did we resist
the temptation to apply residency requirements for government jobs, and
our governments are much larger than that of the District of Columbia
and offer more opportunities, but we also resisted it in the form of
taxes on out-of-State employees. We have not done that. We have not
started that practice.
I daresay that this attempt or this concept by the District of
Columbia would move us in the wrong direction. It would begin to make
jurisdictions wary of each other. It would make jurisdictions start
talking about residency requirements in Prince Georges, Fairfax,
Arlington, Montgomery County. That is not good for the region.
We want to do the right thing for the entire Washington metropolitan
region. The right thing is to allow people to live where they want to
live, where their lifestyle justifies their living, and allow them to
work where they want to work.
I think it is a sad fact that if Members have to have a residency
requirement, it is almost a tacit admission that they can not attract
people to live in their town, they have to compel them to live in their
town.
I do not believe that is what the District of Columbia is saying. I
believe the District of Columbia is a viable and desirable place to
live. I think people will want to come and live in the District of
Columbia, and there is no need, no fundamental need, for a residency
requirement that would impose this mandatory requirement.
I would like to return to and maintain the notion of regional
cooperation. That is why I am here to oppose the residency requirement
for the District of Columbia.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do
not find it easy to disagree with some of the Members who have spoken
here today, because they are my friends and I respect them a lot. But I
understand what they are doing. They are speaking on behalf of their
constituents who work in the District of Columbia and live in their
districts. That is an honorable thing to do, and that is a proper thing
to say.
However, those who know me know that I do not like embargoes and I do
not like colonialism. This is colonialism at its worst. What it
basically says is that on a daily basis, we bash the District of
Columbia. We basically say, every time their appropriation bill comes
up or their authorization bill comes up, that they are not doing the
right thing, that they do not know how to govern themselves, that they
do not know how to conduct themselves. They get bashed more than any
other group in this Nation except for immigrants. That is a fact of
life.
Now, when the District of Columbia begins to move ahead and tries to
deal with issues as other people in inner cities and suburban
communities are doing throughout this country, by saying, part of the
way we want to better ourselves is to require you, for certain jobs, to
live within the community that you work in so that you will have an
interest in that community, so that you will be a force, a presence in
that community, so that you will be a leader in that community, then we
step in and say, no, you cannot do that. You cannot do that. You cannot
do that. You cannot try to improve your schools by suggesting having
teachers who live in that neighborhood and know those children and see
those children, and have to worry about whatever crime those children
commit, and want to celebrate when those children graduate; you cannot
do that.

{time} 1945

We will not let you do that, or that a gentleman who is living in an
area where fires may be a problem and he is a city fireman would not
take special interest in finding out where the people are who could be
committing the kind of crime that leads to those fires, you cannot do
that, that is improving your community. We understand but, you see, you
are trampling with something we want to talk about, about some of the
people who live outside the District, so you cannot do that.
The fact of life is that D.C. is not alone. There are communities
throughout this country that are moving in this direction, that have
established in fact residency requirements. Today what you are being
asked to do here is to interfere once again with a local decision, a
decision that affects only a certain group of workers.
Some of my colleagues have mentioned the Capitol Police as an
example. We all love the Capitol Police, and we pay respect to them
more than ever these days for their sacrifice to us. But that is not
the same thing. The Capitol Police and the Federal workers are not
covered under this, and the Congress is not covered under this. And the
Congress is a unique community, Nation, if you will, that lives within
the District of Columbia. So we are not saying that the people, for
instance, who are on this floor or back in our offices are subjected to
this. What we are saying is, let us hear it clearly, that the District
of Columbia said, if Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones paid taxes to pay your
salary to be our fireman, Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones, who pay those taxes
because they reside within the District of Columbia, are asking you to
do the same thing and reside within the District of Columbia. You do
not want to do that, well, you do not have to take that job.
The other comment I heard which really troubled me is, it does not
hurt us, it hurts the people in the District of Columbia. Well, that
makes two assumptions that are incorrect. One, that all jobs are in the
suburbs. That is why 8 million people, 5 million people come into New
York City every day to work. Because all the jobs are in the suburbs.
And secondly, that you cannot find qualified people in the District of
Columbia. That sends an additional message. It tells young people, do
not educate yourself because once you have educated yourself, there are
people who think you are not qualified to hold the jobs that are
locally in this economy.
This does not make any sense. Most of you know it does not make any
sense. So the right vote is to support the Norton amendment.
In addition, I would make a special plea to those of you who think
this is a special, unique situation. The District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa do not have a vote on
this floor. Every so often we should take that into consideration and
accept that what their delegates and representatives tell us carry a
certain emotional weight, the weight of trying to represent people
without any vote on this floor. That means something to me.
That means that I take my vote and transfer it to the gentlewoman
from

[[Page H7367]]

the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) tonight. I will by supporting her
amendment. I hope we all do the same.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. I
think it is very important for the District of Columbia that there be
regional cooperation. I have worked very hard during my career here in
Washington as well as my service in our State capital to try to help
the District of Columbia to work in a regional way to do what is right.
In response to the last gentleman's comments, I do believe in local
rule for local issues. But this matter goes beyond what is local. It
deals with what is in the best interest of this area.
Mr. Chairman, when I first was elected to the State legislature, I
represented Baltimore City. Baltimore City had at that time an earnings
tax. We in the State saved Baltimore City from itself and repealed that
earnings tax that was discriminatory against people who lived outside
of Baltimore City.
Some might say, why did the State of Maryland do that? Because the
State of Maryland had responsibility, a good deal of responsibility for
the fiscal condition of Baltimore, and it was in Baltimore's interest
that the entire State be sensitive to its problems.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that it is in the Nation's interest and
in the District of Columbia's interest that we all show the appropriate
concern and welfare for the people that live within our Nation's
capital. But then that requires cooperation and understanding. When you
tell people that they must live in that jurisdiction in order to work
for it, you are drawing a wall around the District. That is not
healthy. That is not good. That will not help the District in solving
its problems here in this body.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentlewoman is well-intentioned in her
amendment. I know that she fights as hard as anyone does for the people
that she represents. But there are times that we have to speak for what
is important from what we represent and the Nation's interest.
It is important that all people in our country pay attention to the
problems of the District, but in order for us to have that type of
compassion and concern, it is only fair that we have a system within
the District on employment that does not discriminate against people
because they just do not happen to live within the District of
Columbia. That is not fair.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment to allow the regional
cooperation which is so important to the health of our Nation's capital
to continue.
Reject the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, in the words of the
old adage, to consider the source or, shall I say, consider the
sources.
The only Members who have come to the floor to support the repeal of
the District's residency law have been suburban Members who are
selfishly interested in the outcome of this repeal. Exclusively, we
have heard from suburban Members. They have ignored every argument in
favor of the bill. Waiver, we are told, is not good enough. There will
be a bureaucracy, and it will not be waived.
Of course, it is in our interest to fill positions. They do not know
whether it will be waived or not. But since they do not have an answer,
the answer is, I simply reject it without any proof.
We are told it is class legislation. Although I have indicated a
perfect example, the 911 operators who are likely to be filled by
anyone who is competent. I tell my colleagues right now that with all
of the movement out of the District, we probably could not fill a
police class in the District alone because the standards have been
raised. Kids must not have gotten into trouble and the like, for
example. There is no class bias here.
People who voted for this would hardly have done so considering that
they have to run for office in the District of Columbia if there were
class bias.
We are told in one of the most innovative arguments that the land to
form the District of Columbia was donated by the State of Maryland;
ergo, the District must, therefore, grant whatever the State, what is
in the interest of the State of Maryland and not in its own interest.
We are told that this is an election year, that this was done for
political reasons. Well, that must mean that it was done because those
who voted for it believe that the people of the District of Columbia
wanted it.
We are told that there is no reciprocity here. If you find that two-
thirds of your workers do not in fact live in your city, then you are
free to enact this kind of proposal as well. That is why we are doing
it, because we are recovering from insolvency. We need the tax money
here. And you suburban Members, you are the same Members who keep us
from having a commuter tax, even a commuter tax on people who earn
their living from the taxpayers of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Chairman, there is a conflict of interest on the part of every
Member who has spoken for repeal. They want it their way. They want to
have us coming, and they want to have us going.
The fact is that the District government has provided a safe Civil
Service job for their residents. They have taken those safe jobs and
used those jobs to move out of town.
This legislation gives the words ``special interest'' new meaning,
new meaning and pregnant meaning.
I ask my colleagues to support me on this matter, to support the
District as it recovers from insolvency, as it passes a law that allows
liberal waiver to preserve the quality of the work force, to allow us
to decide whom to employ and whom to pay and not to allow that decision
to be made by suburban Members of this body, all of whom have
exclusively been those who have spoken for repeal.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I inform the gentlewoman that I am not from the
suburbs, and I oppose this amendment and urge repeal of the residency
requirement.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton); amendment No. 2 offered by the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton); amendment No. 3 offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton); and amendment
No. 4 offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Norton

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 237, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 407]

AYES--187

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Bishop

[[Page H7368]]

Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--237

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

NOT VOTING--10

Cunningham
Gonzalez
Harman
Manton
McDade
Moakley
Packard
Paul
Thompson
Yates

{time} 2015

Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. HEFLEY and Mr. COSTELLO changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BECERRA, MASCARA, OBERSTAR, ORTIZ, POMEROY, KOLBE and CLYBURN
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger).
Pursuant to House Resolution 517, the Chair announces that he will
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote
by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair
has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Norton

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment No. 2 offered by the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 180,
noes 243, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 408]

AYES--180

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
Lantos
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stokes
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
White
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--243

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling

[[Page H7369]]

Goss
Graham
Granger
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Lofgren

NOT VOTING--10

Burton
Cunningham
Gonzalez
Harman
Manton
McDade
Moakley
Packard
Thompson
Yates

{time} 2024

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Norton

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment No. 3 offered by the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 409]

AYES--181

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

NOES--243

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

NOT VOTING--10

Cunningham
Gekas
Gonzalez
Harman
Manton
McDade
Moakley
Packard
Thompson
Yates

{time} 2032

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Norton

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). The pending business is
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment No. 4 offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 109,
noes 313, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 410]

AYES--109

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)

[[Page H7370]]

Campbell
Capps
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeLauro
Doggett
Duncan
Ehlers
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gephardt
Goodling
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lampson
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lucas
Luther
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Obey
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Poshard
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Serrano
Smith (MI)
Smith, Adam
Stark
Stokes
Taylor (NC)
Tierney
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)

NOES--313

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Paxon
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Dixon

NOT VOTING--11

Cubin
Cunningham
Gonzalez
Harman
Manton
McDade
Moakley
Packard
Stearns
Thompson
Yates

{time} 2039

Mr. MEEHAN and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Thoughts of Honorable Duke Cunningham on Successful Cancer Surgery

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, all of our colleagues have become aware of the fact
that our friend from California (Duke Cunningham) is currently in the
hospital. I would like to share with my colleagues for just a moment
thoughts our friend Duke Cunningham would say to us:
``I have engaged the enemy and won--and once more I shall win due to
the attentiveness of the outstanding staffs at both Bethesda Medical
Center and the House Attending Physician's office.
``As you may know, I had surgery for prostate cancer on Wednesday
morning. I did so eagerly. I am very thankful that the cancer was found
at the earliest stages during a routine annual physical. My doctor has
said that waiting a few years could have brought a totally different
prognosis. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of each of you--men
and women alike--making it a priority to have a yearly checkup. It has
saved my life.
``To paraphrase General MacArthur (who wasn't Navy): I shall return,
eager to press on and finish our Republican reforms.
``The wind stays strong in my sails.
``God bless you all. Duke.''
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 150. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
no Federal funds appropriated under this Act shall be used to
carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or
syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
Insert at the appropriate place the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to transfer or confine inmates classified above the
medium security level, as defined by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons classification instrument, to the Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center located in Youngstown, Ohio.

Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia had closed its
prison at Lorton and had engaged in a contract with a private for-
profit prison that ended up being in my district that desperately needs
jobs.
Since that time, there have been 13 stabbings, two of them fatal, an
escape of six prisoners, four of them murderers, and one still at
large. I am not here to lay blame and I am not here for any political
purposes of any party back in the State of Ohio. I believe the Governor
and everybody has done the best they can. And I am not here to lay a
big blame on D.C. Private for-profit prisons are a thing of the future
and we will learn much about them from what happens in my district. But
one of the main problems for Congress to understand is this is a low to
medium security level facility that has been built. The contract calls
for low to medium level security inmates. What we are getting is
prisoners and inmates that qualify for supermax type of maximum
security prisons.
The Traficant amendment basically says none of the funds in the bill
can be used to transfer or to place inmates in the Youngstown facility
that are above a medium security level risk as defined by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons classification system. This way we get a standard on
the matter.
In Commerce, Justice, State we passed a general amendment that said
we will study the issues on safety, the development of these prisons on
standards, how their security and training measures are.

{time} 2045

It is a modest amendment.
But before I do that, I would also like to ask the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the chairman of the

[[Page H7371]]

subcommittee, to engage in a colloquy. I am also asking that the
committee place, along with the ranking member, report language into
the bill that asks for the General Accounting Office to do an in-depth
review and inspection of the security and management procedures of this
facility and the job opportunities that were presented to it.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the
gentleman's amendment on this side, and it is a good amendment and we
will accept it. We will work with the gentleman in the conference to
get the report language that he desires.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, with that I would ask to have the
support of the Congress. I think it is very important for the Nation
with the development of these private for-profit prisons, and I think
our handling of this will serve as the prototype to handle these around
the country.
Mr. Chairman, with that I ask for support.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this actually is a very important issue. It is going to
become more important in the future because we are talking about moving
7,000 Lorton inmates around the country as we close down the Lorton
prison.
There was a front-page article in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal,
talking about this situation at Youngstown, but I think we need to
address the larger issue and give a little background in the time I
have.
I support this amendment, and I support the efforts the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has taken to improve the security at the
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown.
I represent the communities surrounding the Lorton Correctional
Complex, and I can understand the frustration of the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant) with the housing of inmates from the District of
Columbia. Although the facility in Youngstown is operated by the
Corrections Corporation of America, the root of the problems faced
there stems from the inability to adequately and properly classify the
inmates of the District of Columbia.
In the late 1980's the District was experiencing a tremendous
increase in its inmate population and court orders capping the number
of inmates that could be housed in each of its facilities. To escape
the court-ordered cap on the number of inmates that could be housed in
the maximum facility, the District created a category known as ``high
medium'' but they were really maximum security prisoners. The District
is still operating under this court-imposed cap and continues to house
medium and high medium inmates together. That policy has led to
numerous problems at the Occoquan facility at Lorton; has continued
when the inmates was transferred to the Youngstown facility.
Under current law all District inmates who are in prison for more
than one year are in the custody of the Attorney General of the United
States. When inmates are transferred to various facilities around the
country, the Attorney General must approve all of those transfers.
Before the Department of Corrections could transfer inmates to the
Youngstown facility, the Department of Justice had to inspect the
Youngstown facility and certify that it was acceptable for the housing
of the inmates that were being transferred from Occoquan to Youngstown,
and the transfer had to be approved. According to the Director of the
Department of Corrections this had been done before every transfer.
Under the contract between the District and the Corrections
Corporation of America, CCA has 5 days to challenge the transfer on the
grounds that the inmate should not be housed in that facility because
he is too much of a security risk. The District, however, has made the
process impossible to implement because it has shipped 1,700 inmates
without their records.
This is the problem. We ship 1,700 inmates without their records, so
it is impossible for the Attorney General to approve each one of them.
In fact, the Department of Corrections did not send the records until
Judge Bell from Ohio ordered the records to be transferred. This decree
was ordered 1 year after the original transfer, and even with Judge
Bell's order, all of the records have not been sent to Ohio, and there
is some question whether the records even exist.
I raise these points to highlight ongoing problems with how the
District of Columbia classifies and houses its inmates. It is not the
first time that we have had a problem like this. In 1996 Congress
required the Justice Department to study D.C.'s inmate classification
system and create a more appropriate system for the inmate population.
It was done by the National Council of Crime and Delinquency, but there
has not been any follow-up to that study.
So I support this amendment wholeheartedly, and I hope we can work
with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and the Department of
Justice and the Corrections Corporation of America to go even further
and address the fundamental problems with how the District's prisoners
are classified. That is what this problem is. And only by ensuring the
District's inmate population is fairly classified can we ensure that
the inmates, the guards and the communities in which the prisoners are
housed are safe and secure.
I raise these issues because it is going to be an ongoing problem,
and basically the problem is that when we transfer 1,700 inmates
without their records there is no way that we can ensure that the
people in the proper classification are going where they should be
going.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the amendment
in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriation bill will give us a
snapshot around the country of the whole business of security training,
how they match up and compare it to standards, but in this bill the
gentleman is exactly right. We are dealing with that specific transfer,
and I am not an individual who wants to stop this contract, I am not
out waving the banner to close the prison. I just want to make sure
that the delineation of medium security level prisoners is the risk we
take in housing those prisoners.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not object to this amendment. I regret that it has
been offered because I think it unnecessary. The reason I do not object
to it is that it is not a violation of Home Rule but comports with an
existing court order that already prohibits above medium classification
prisoners from being shipped to Ohio.
The gentleman has every reason to be very concerned that there were
misclassified prisoners who were sent to this facility. Moreover,
unlike some of the amendments that have been brought forward in this
body, this matter directly adversely affects this Member's district.
The fact is, however, that the court order has been agreed to by the
District and is better protection for the Member's concerns than the
amendment he has offered. The District has gone further and adopted the
Bureau of Prisoners classification for prisoners because part of what
happened in Youngstown was the difference between the District and
other jurisdictions, as one might imagine would be the case, on what
indeed is medium classification, what is a low classification prisoner
and the like.
In order to straighten that out the District now simply adopts the
Bureau of Prisons' classifications, which is of course the right thing
to do, considering that these prisoners are on their way to being in
the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, because under the
revitalization package passed by Congress, last year, these are no
longer District of Columbia inmates. We are in a transition period, and
that transition period means that gradually these prisoners are being
moved from the custody of the District of Columbia to the custody of
the Federal Government.
I accept this amendment. I believe it is unnecessary. I do not oppose
it, however, because the District has already agreed to it.
I absolutely sympathize with the gentleman's concerns. The gentleman

[[Page H7372]]

has been a strong supporter of Home Rule. The gentleman did not spring
this on me but came and talked with me about it so that we could reach
an agreement.
I only ask that other Members, before they decide what to do with
respect to a District issue, do me the courtesy of approaching me so
that we can seek to work out an understanding.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the reason for the amendment, however,
is to ensure that there is no mistaking that the Federal Bureau of
Prisons classification system shall now be codified into law as the
measurement device for that medium security level inmate.
In addition to that, many of these court orders, although they speak
to specifics, they at times are violated and get involved in a very
long, sophisticated hassle. Meanwhile, people are worried.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand your
concern and I do not blame you, considering that there has been a
breakout up there, but if I may say so, there is no better protection
than a court order that says you are in contempt if you violate what I
say, because you can break a law that this body passes and nobody can
do anything to you until somebody decides to go in and go through a
long rigmarole to bring a court suit.
Contempt proceedings are fast and sure. In any case, the gentleman
and I, as usual, are not in disagreement.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment printed in House Report 105-679 offered by Mr.
Tiahrt:
Page 58, strike lines 6 through 10 and insert the
following:
Sec. 150. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used for any program of distributing sterile needles or
syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug, or
for any payment to any individual or entity who carries out
any such program.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. Tiahrt asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will restrict any funds from
being used to distribute sterile needles or syringes to people who
abuse drugs. It is commonly called the needle exchange program.
The reason we are doing this is because it is bad public policy, and
we base this decision on whether it is bad public policy on current
research. I want to cite a June 8 Wall Street Journal editorial by Dr.
Satel, a psychiatrist and lecturer at Yale University School of
Medicine, who reported that most needle exchange studies have been full
of design errors and, in fact, the more rigorous studies have actually
shown an increase in HIV infection among participants in needle
exchange programs.
They cite two studies, one which was done in Vancouver, which was a
study that goes over 10 years, where they have distributed as many as a
million needles per year. What they found out is that HIV rates among
participants in the needle exchange program is higher than the HIV rate
among injecting drug users who do not participate.
They also found out that the death rate due to illegal drugs in
Vancouver has skyrocketed since the needle exchange program was
introduced. In 1988 only 18 deaths were attributed to drugs. This year
they are averaging 10 deaths due to drugs per week. They anticipate 600
deaths due to drugs this year, and they attribute that primarily to the
needle exchange program and the proliferation of drug abuse.
They also found that the highest property crime rates in Vancouver
are within a few blocks of the needle exchange program. The place has
become a 24-hour drug market. There is open drug injection activity,
and it has been bad for the general vicinity and obviously bad for the
people who have been involved in the needle exchange program.
The other extensive study was done in Montreal, and they find out in
Montreal that participants in the needle exchange program were two
times more likely to become infected with HIV than those who did not
participate in the study. These increased risks were substantial and
consistent despite extensive adjustment to the program.
Dr. Bruneau, who participated in the study, said that these programs,
needle exchange programs, may have facilitated formation of new sharing
networks, with the programs becoming a gathering place for isolated
addicts. So what we have is a policy that is a bad public policy, and
we are hoping to stop that.
This policy is also opposed by the drug czar. General Barry McCaffrey
has said that as public servants, citizens and parents, we owe to our
children an unambiguous no use message, and if they should become
ensnared in drugs, we must offer them a way out, not a means to
continue this addictive behavior.

{time} 2100

We have also had local police authorities who, when they stopped the
needle exchange program, gave an opinion in Alexandria. Police Chief
Charles Samarra said the message of government supplying needles to
addicts is clearly contradictory to our Nation's national and local
antidrug efforts.
This is poor public policy, and it does place the police in a very
poor position. Here in the District of Columbia it is the unofficial
policy, according to the Office of the District of Columbia Police
Chief Charles Ramsey, to look the other way when drug addicts approach
this van that distributes the needles. Even though these people may be
holding illegal drugs, even though they may be holding illegal drug
paraphernalia, even though they may be drug pushers, they have to turn
their head. So we think it is bad policy, and we hope we get support
for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks to control time in opposition?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first some facts: The District of Columbia has one of
the highest incidences of HIV infection in the country.
Intravenous drug use in the District is the District's second highest
mode of transmission, accounting for over a quarter of all the new AIDS
cases.
For women, where the rate of infection is growing faster than among
men, intravenous drug use represents the highest mode of HIV
transmission. The growth of HIV infections is highest among women and
where is it coming from? It is coming from dirty needles.
In the African-American community, listen to this, 97 percent of the
transmission occurs through dirty needles, 97 percent.
The District of Columbia has had a local needle exchange program in
place since last year. This program, operated by the Whitman Walker
Clinic, uses scarce D.C. appropriated funds to allow the clinic to
exchange on a one-to-one basis between 15,000 and 17,000 dirty needles
each month. The program facilitates access to HIV testing counseling,
which they provide on the spot. So what they are doing is providing the
needles so that they can get hold of people so that they can counsel
them and treat them to rid them of addiction. Without doing that, they
are not getting access to the people that they need to.
We think Whitman Walker should be free to structure the most locally
appropriate response to the greatest public health crisis that has ever
faced this city. Every other state and municipality in the United
States is entitled to use locally raised tax revenue

[[Page H7373]]

to determine the course of their own public health initiatives
unhampered by Congressional restrictions. We think the District should
be accorded the same standing.
The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) cites two Canadian studies on
needle exchanges that allegedly show needle exchange programs have
worsened the AIDS epidemic. But in a New York Times editorial, the
authors of those very same studies made clear that opponents of needle
exchanges have totally misinterpreted the research.
While it is true that the addicts that took part in needle exchange
programs in Vancouver and Montreal had higher HIV infection rates than
those who did not participate in the program, that was not surprising
since those participating in the program consistently engaged in the
riskiest behavior. The authors of the Canadian studies that the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has cited point to a larger study by
Lancet, the British Medical Journal, that found in 29 cities worldwide
where programs are in place, HIV infections in fact dropped by an
average of 6 percent a year among drug users. In 51 cities that had no
needle exchange programs, drug-related infection rose by 6 percent
more.
They conclude their article by stating that clean needles are only
part of the solution. A comprehensive approach should be used, which
includes health care, treatment, social support and counseling. The
authors that were cited called for expansion of needle exchange as a
gateway to these other services, and urged Congress to consider this
approach.
The Whitman Walker needle exchange program is a gateway to treatment.
We should not be shutting off that gate just when its positive impact
is beginning to show. We should not be telling Whitman Walker either
that Federal funds for other programs will be cut off even if solely
private funds are used to finance the needle exchange program. That is
bad policy, and that is why we oppose this amendment.
The people that were cited as the experts say in a New York Times
editorial that you should not interpret their study the way that the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has. In fact, the conclusion is just
the opposite, that needle exchange programs are working.
I was surprised by this data, I was surprised by the statistics, but
I think when you do look at the statistics, you will realize there is
merit to this, particularly in the ability of a city to use its own
local funds for this purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I include the New York Times editorial entitled ``The
Politics of Needles and AIDS'' for the Record.

[From the New York Times, Apr. 1998]

The Politics of Needles and AIDS

(By Julie Bruneau and Martin T. Schecter)

Debate has started up again in Washington about whether the
Government should renew its ban on subsidies for needle-
exchange programs, which advocates say can help stop the
spread of AIDS. In a letter to Congress, Barry McCaffrey, who
is in charge of national drug policy, cited two Canadian
studies to show that needle-exchange plans have failed to
reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, and
may even have worsened the problem. Congressional leaders
have cited these studies to make the same argument.
As the authors of the Canadian studies, we must point out
that these officials have misinterpreted our research. True,
we found that addicts who took part in needle exchange
programs in Vancouver and Montreal had higher H.I.V.
infection rates than addicts who did not. That's not
surprising. Because these programs are in inner-city
neighborhoods, they serve users who are at greatest risk of
infection. Those who didn't accept free needles often didn't
need them since they could afford to buy syringes in
drugstores. They also were less likely to engage in the
riskiest activities.
Also, needle-exchange programs must be tailored to local
conditions. For example, in Montreal and Vancouver, cocaine
injection is a major source of H.I.V. transmission. Some
users inject the drug up to 40 times a day. At that rate, we
have calculated that the two cities we studied would each
need 10 million clean needles a year to prevent the re-use of
syringes. Currently, the Vancouver program exchanges two
million syringes annually, and Montreal, half a million.
A study conducted last year and published in The Lancet,
the British medical journal, found that in 29 cities
worldwide where programs are in place, H.I.V. infection
dropped by an average of 5.8 percent a year among drug users.
In 51 cities that had no needle-exchange plans, drug-related
infection rose by 5.9 percent a year. Clearly these efforts
can work.
But clean needles are only part of the solution. A
comprehensive approach that includes needle exchange, health
care, treatment, social support and counseling is also
needed. In Canada, local governments acted on our research by
expanding needle exchanges and adding related services. We
hope the Clinton Administration and Congress will provide the
same kind of leadership in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules and sage counsel of the Republican side of the House.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, there are two major issues in this country that we
always have to be aware of. One is the national defense of our country,
to protect us against those that would take away our precious
democracy. The other is dealing with the illegal use of drugs in this
country. It is literally wiping out an entire new generation of people,
whether it is 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14-year-olds, and it is so sad.
I have been involved with trying to correct this for many, many
years. I come from New York. In New York City we have a needle exchange
program, and I can tell you it is a failure; that you have increased
drug use, you have increased crime because of the needle exchange
programs, where they are not just exchanging needles, but they are
bringing in one, taking out 40. That is not doing anything for people
that are sadly hooked with drugs.
If you go to Vancouver, which is on our northern border, if you go to
Montreal, just above my house in New York, you will see a pathetic
situation. If you go to Amsterdam, Holland, where I was the other day,
and it is so, so terribly sad to see what is happening to the younger
generation of people in the Netherlands. The same if you go into even
Switzerland, where they have permissiveness.
Permissiveness towards illegal drugs, including needle exchange
programs, leads to increased drug addiction, which leads to increased
crime, including violent crime. The worst part about that, right here
in America, 75 percent of all the crime, violent crime in America, is
drug-related, and it is against women and children. That is how sad
this situation is.
The only way to reduce drug use in America is certainly not to do it
with drug programs. You need to wean drug addicts from using drugs. You
do not do it by making them more available to them. That is why you
really need to pass this. Not just for the District of Columbia, you
need to do it for Albany, New York, for New York City, and every city
in America, to show the example, that we just want to save this new
generation of Americans.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress has banned the use of Federal funds for
needle exchange programs and left local jurisdictions to decide for
themselves how to handle the AIDS epidemic. I ask you not to read the
District out of our federalist democracy by imposing the Congressional
will on this life or death issue.
Let us be clear who we are talking about. The District is in the
throes of an AIDS epidemic that is totally out of control. It ranks
first in the Nation in HIV-AIDS. The majority of District residents are
African-Americans.
Nationally, AIDS is the leading killer of African-American men and
women 25-34, and half of these deaths are needle-related. New
infections in young men and women age 13 to 24 are rising so rapidly
they have become the focus of special concern. Two-thirds of AIDS in
women and 50 percent of AIDS in children can be traced to the needle
chain of transmission.
All of the world class investigators that Congress asked to look at
this issue have come to the same conclusion. The entire medical and
scientific establishment, among them six federally funded
investigations, have found that these programs reduce infections
markedly and do not promote drug use.
The Vancouver study has been, according to its authors,
misinterpreted.

[[Page H7374]]

They have said so in an article in the New York Times. The use of that
research on this floor is bogus.
Wherever you stand on needle exchange, even if you are willing to
disregard the findings of the NAS, the CDC, the GAO, the National
Commission on AIDS, the University of California, the Office of
Technology Assessment and the National Institutes of Health, I ask you
not to place the District in a class by itself, unable to make
decisions for its own residents that are a matter of life or death.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Riggs).
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I spoke on this earlier, but I rise again because I
think it is a matter of such great importance. I think, first of all,
we ought to stipulate that the ``District funds'' are still subject to
appropriation, or, more correctly, reappropriation by the Congress, so
I think there is a very legitimate reason for us taking an active role
in this particular debate.
I think every Member of Congress on a bipartisan, or, better yet,
nonpartisan basis has to be concerned about the spread of HIV-related
illnesses. But the distinction on our part is while we agree with the
comprehensive approach that includes beginning with our children in the
youngest grades in school, education, prevention, treatment and
rehabilitation, attacking the problem on both the demand side as well
as the supply side, we cannot, we should not, be in a position where we
somehow sanction illegal drug use. We do not really want to be in a
position here where we use taxpayer funding or other tax revenues to
promote illegal drug use, to promote further drug addiction and drug
dependency in the District of Columbia. What message are we sending to
our young people if we go along with this kind of policy?
Now, all of us, many, many millions of Americans, have had a personal
experience with a family member whose life has been affected, sometimes
ruined, by drug use, and we are all too familiar with the situation
where other family members, out of their love and concern for that
individual, turn a blind eye. We condone or in some other way
facilitate that drug use.
That is called enabling behavior, and I cannot believe that we would
consider for a moment in this distinguished body allowing, on an
official governmental basis, making as a matter of public policy in the
District of Columbia, with District funding and/or Federal taxpayer
funding, allowing enabling behavior for people involved in illegal drug
use.
Support the Tiahrt amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, when we are talking about AIDS, we are
talking about an epidemic. This should not be a discussion that is an
opportunity to play politics. Banning needle exchange will not help
save our children, or anyone else. In fact, a ban on needle exchange
actually threatens lives.
More than half of all children with AIDS contracted the virus from
mothers who were intravenous drug users or the partners of intravenous
drug users. That is right, we are talking about how our children
contract AIDS.
In 1995, the National Academy of Sciences found that needle exchange
programs do reduce the spread of AIDS and do not lead to the increase
of drug use. In fact, do not overlook the fact that a drug user ready
to take the first positive step through a needle exchange program is
apt to take further steps towards recovery.
As well, this amendment prevents communities from using their own
private funds, and that is what I call a violation of local control.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District
of Columbia.

{time} 2115

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an issue that is
complicated. It is emotional. It is one where people of good will I
think can reasonably disagree. We have not too bad objectives, but we
have competing public policy objectives.
On the one hand we have groups who say the best way is to stop drug
use in its entirety, to just say no, and that ought to be the
overriding public policy concern. On the other hand, we have some data
that I find is persuasive in many cases saying that exchanging needles,
giving people clean needles that are using illegal drugs, can stop the
spread of AIDS and hepatitis and can bring down those areas.
Those are both good objectives, but they are competing objectives. We
cannot have it both ways. The question comes down to, are we better off
giving drug users free, taxpayer-funded needles to use illegal drugs in
the hope cleaner needles will stop the spread of disease, or are we
better off sending a strong just-say-no message to preventing more drug
users from starting illegal drug use in the first place, so they will
never start using illegal drugs and will not need needles in the first
place?
It is complicated. I think the criteria are different. Here is where
I come down, when I look at it. It seems most inconsistent to me that
we have veterans, we have patients in HMOs, we have Medicaid patients
who are charged, in many cases, for having needles, using legal drugs,
while at the same time we are giving free needles to people to use a
product in a usage that is illegal.
So I think the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas is one that, on
a public policy basis, I support. I realize I have friends on the other
side with strong and persuasive feelings, but I think the message here
ought to be that we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund free
needles for people to do illegal acts.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this Congress voted not to use any Federal
funds for needle exchange programs. That is done. If that is done
already, what is this extra measure that is being used, directed right
at the District of Columbia? Again, it is that running roughshod, it is
that disrespect.
At the time that this is going on, 33 Americans are infected each day
with HIV because of injection drug use. We had better get our heads out
of the sand. Members know that needle exchange is not about promoting
drug use, needle exchange is about saving lives. It is about saving
lives, because 75 percent of babies diagnosed with HIV/AIDS are
infected as a result of tainted needles used by their parents.
If we get drug users coming in to exchange needles, we get a chance
to talk with them. We get a chance to know who they are. We get a
chance to convince them, and God forbid, if we ever have drug rehab on
demand, we can get them into the hospitals, into the clinics, and we
can begin to change lives.
Maybe Members do not care, but let me tell the Members why I care so
much. It is the leading killer of African Americans between the ages of
25 and 44. People are dying, babies are dying. We need to have a
sensible policy to deal with drug use. Needle exchange is such a
policy.
Members ought to be ashamed of themselves for denying it to the
District of Columbia, using their own money.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would remind the gentlewoman that there is nothing that prevents
private funding from doing the needle exchange program.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. First of all, this is not a ban on needle exchange programs.
What this is is an amendment that says we are not going to use Federal
taxpayer dollars, taxpayer dollars taken from people in Arizona and
across the country, to send the message that it is okay to break the
law, that it is okay to destroy your lives with drugs.
I want to cite Dr. James L. Curtis, a medical doctor and a clinical
professor of psychiatry at Harlem Hospital Center, a black American
himself. He says point blank, ``There is no evidence that such programs
work.'' I also want to

[[Page H7375]]

cite Dr. Janet D. Lapey, medical doctor, president, Drug Watch
International. She points out that in Montreal, deaths from overdoses
have increased fivefold since that program started, and in fact, they
now have the highest heroine death rate in this country.
I also want to cite Nancy Sossman, who appeared before our committee,
and who explained how these programs work in the real world. It is not
in fact an exchange. She asked for needles, and was given 40 needles
without surrendering one. With regard to programs cleaning up the
situation, she said she was a short-term user. She just started, and
they did not even encourage her to go for treatment. In the real world
these programs do not work, and we should not subsidize them with
government dollars.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, let us be clear about this amendment. I
just want to clarify what was just stated, that this bill already
prohibits the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs in the
District of Columbia. But the amendment that has been offered goes
beyond the ban on the Federal funding to also include local funding,
funding that is raised in the District of Columbia for this purpose.
Frankly, I think to prohibit the District from using its own, and I
emphasize, its own local revenues for its needle exchange program which
was started a year ago, is really clearly a violation of local control.
I remember when we discussed this whole issue on the floor of the
House. Some of us believed that HIV prevention strategy in terms of
needle exchange was well worth it. But I do remember when a majority of
our colleagues voted for the ban on the use of Federal funds. During
that debate, many of the Members argued that States and localities
could still use their own revenues for these programs.
Therefore, a vote against this amendment will give us the opportunity
to follow through on our promise. Let the District decide how best to
prevent new HIV infections within its own community, with its own
money. My State of Maryland does that very successfully in the
Baltimore area and Prince George's area. Let us vote against this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment. This
amendment will prohibit the use of both federal and local funds for the
city's needle exchange program to prevent new HIV infections in
injection drug users and their partners.
Trying to micromanage D.C. would be counterproductive for the
Congress and would encroach on the legitimate roles of the City Council
and the Control Board. We in Congress have worked to give back local
control to our communities. These provisions would run counter to that
objective.
The District of Columbia has one of the highest HIV infection rates
in the country. Intravenous drug use is the District's second highest
mode of transmission, accounting for over 25 percent of all new AIDS
cases. For women, where the rate of infection is growing faster than
among men, it is the highest mode of transmission.
Scientific evidence supports the fact that needle exchange programs
reduce HIV infection and do not contribute to illegal drug use. The
American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the
American Public Health Association, the Association of State and
Territorial Health Officials, the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses Association, the
National Black Caucus of State Legislators, and the United States
Conference of Mayors all have expressed their support for needle
exchange, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention program. A number
of federally funded studies have reached the same conclusion and have
found that needle exchange programs do not increase drug use--including
a consensus conference convened by the National Institutes of Health
last year.
Despite this consensus, on April 29, 1998, the House voted to
prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for needle exchange programs.
The District of Columbia has had a local needle exchange program in
place since last year, an important tool in the city's fight against
the spread of HIV and an important bridge to drug treatment services.
Now, some Members want to tell D.C. that it cannot spend its own funds
to prevent new HIV infections. This is simply wrong. Local
jurisdictions should be able to decide for themselves how best to fight
the HIV epidemic in their own communities. In my own state of Maryland,
Baltimore City's needle exchange program has been associated with a 40%
reduction in new cases of HIV among participants, and evaluation of the
program has demonstrated that needle exchange did not increase drug
use. In fact, a bill was approved to continue the program by an
overwhelming vote in the Maryland State Legislature last year--it
passed by a vote of 113-23 in the House of Delegates and by a vote of
30-17 in the State Senate. And, earlier this year, the Maryland State
Legislature voted to allow Prince George's County to establish a needle
exchange program.
Mr. Chairman, with so few days left In the legislative calendar,
Congress cannot afford to hold up the appropriations process by
politicizing public health decisions. I urge my colleagues to reject
such efforts and allow the district to make its own decision on how
best to prevent new HIV infections. Vote ``no'' on Tiahrt.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon).
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, we might as well just vote on these issues.
If we come to the floor and debate the wrong amendments or the wrong
language of the amendment, if we come to the floor and say that studies
say one thing, misrepresentations, I said in my opening statement 2 or
3 hours ago, now the gentleman is going to use the statement claiming
something about a study. We have something here that refutes that
entirely. We might as well just vote.
The language that we are debating says, no funds contained in this
act. It does not say, no Federal funds in this act, it says no funds.
The gentleman can certainly adjust his argument to say, well, I think
that, but the point is, the gentleman was debating something that is
not so.
The gentleman comes to the floor and he cites a study as if it
supports his argument. It does not. The authors have already said that.
So if this is just a matter of philosophy, let us just roll the
amendments up here and vote.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Tiahrt amendment because all the
scientific data from experts suggests needle exchange programs reduce
HIV infection and do not increase drug use. While AIDS deaths are down,
clearly HIV infection continues to increase especially in inner city
areas where injection drug use is prevalent.
Needle exchange does not increase drug use, rather it encourages a
society that would have fewer individuals infected with HIV. These
programs make needles available on a replacement basis only, and refer
participants to drug counseling and treatment. The National Institutes
of Health's march 1997 study concluded that needle exchange programs
have shown a reduction in risk behaviors as high as 80 percent in
injecting drug users, with estimates of 30 percent or greater reduction
of HIV.
In addition, this amendment puts children at risk. The Centers for
Disease Control reported that the rate of HIV/AIDS in the African
American community is 7 times that of the general population. Make no
mistake about it--this is not an African American problem this is an
American problem. This is a public health issue and the Surgeon
General, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services both support
needle exchange programs. When we help save American lives--America is
stronger.
The Federal Government must provide leadership on this critical issue
and therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this debate, and I will tell the
Members it really upsets me. I go to the funerals. I see the shrivelled
up bodies in the caskets. I see the people suffering. I see my people
dying over and over and over again.
Members can cite any study they want to cite. Come to Baltimore,
which has a similar program as this one. We are saving lives. It is
real simple to sit

[[Page H7376]]

here and say that these programs should not exist. This is life and
death, life and death. So over and over and over again, I hear the
arguments.
But let me tell the Members something. In Baltimore, there is
reduction of HIV because of these programs; in Baltimore, reduction of
drug use because of these programs; in Baltimore, reduction of crime
because of these programs. It is very simple.
Members can cite anything they want to cite. The reason why I am so
upset about it is because, like I said, I go to the funerals. I watch
them die. I see the babies in the hospital as they cry out. So I say to
the Members, I beg them that as this debate goes forward, understand
that there are people who are dying. All of the amendments that we have
had so far will not save lives, but this one, this amendment, if it
goes through, will kill people. That is a fact.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings) was so eloquent in his presentation about what we do
know, those of us who take the bite of this wormy apple of the spread
of HIV in our communities. We know something about how to prevent the
suffering, suffering that these families experience. We know something
about saving taxpayers' dollars, if that is the only issue that
concerns people here tonight.
Can we all stipulate that we are all against the spread of drug abuse
in our country, and IV drug use? Let us all respect each other on that
score. But respect is the word that I think tonight's debate is about.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and others have clearly
laid out that the science says that the needle exchange programs save
lives. Nobody less than the head of the National Institutes of Health,
Dr. Varmus, a Nobel Prize winner himself, has stated that over and over
again.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) described a needle exchange
program that I would not support myself, and that is not what we are
talking about tonight. We are talking about a needle exchange program
that is part of an HIV prevention program that gets people into
treatment and prevention.
I want to share just another thought here. When I was born my father
was in Congress. He was chair of the District of Columbia Subcommittee
of the Committee on Appropriations. They did not have home rule then,
but he was a big supporter of home rule because he respected the people
of Washington, D.C.
Why is it that every time this bill comes up, we see these assaults
on local autonomy, and assaults on the intelligence and the decision-
making ability of the people of the District of Columbia? These people
have to deal with an important and dangerous public health issue that
is facing them. They have drawn conclusions scientifically about how to
stop the spread of HIV and all the suffering that goes with it, and all
the expense to the taxpayer that goes with it.
This Congress has already passed legislation prohibiting Federal
funds to be used for these kinds of programs. Why do we have to go
through this again, and say no local funds? Would Members want this
Congress to be interfering in the business of Members' own communities?
I do not think so. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Tiahrt
amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me,
Mr. Chairman.
I just walked by the Chamber and I heard loud noises, very pious
sounds coming out. I knew that we were once again hearing those who
believe that we can attack and cure the drug problem by fostering the
drug problem; that we can solve one problem by giving people the means
to kill themselves with mind-altering drugs. I knew it is that season
again.
The reason, I would tell my colleagues on the other side, why every
time this bill comes up we present an amendment to prohibit the use of
funds for needle giveaway programs, what they like to more benignly
talk about as needle exchange programs, is because there is a serious
problem with drugs in the District of Columbia, as there is in
communities all across America.

{time} 2130

The reason that it is appropriate and fitting to address this issue
in this bill is because these are Federal monies. Now, if citizens of
some other country want to engage in the absurdity of saying we can
solve a problem by giving people drugs or giving people the means to
kill themselves with drugs and that that is, indeed, in some other
cultures perceived as a great virtue, then so be it. Other countries
such as the Netherlands and Switzerland are dealing with that these
very days.
We here in this Congress do not stand for that. The people of this
country do not stand for that. There are ways to attack health problems
in our communities, but I would prefer to see us attack those health
problems in our communities, not by telling our children, here, have
this needle, ingest drugs, it is good for you, and yet, I dare say,
that probably many of those who propose this chastise the tobacco
companies endlessly.
Let us get our priorities in order, Mr. Chairman. This is an
appropriate piece of legislation on which to attach this amendment.
This is an appropriate amendment. The people of this country do not
want drug dealing. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that since Republicans took over
the House, we have significantly increased the funds for HIV and AIDs
awareness. We have significantly increased the funds for research and
development to find a solution for this problem. But sometimes you have
to come to a point where tough love is the message that you have to
send. It has to be a clear message. Do not get involved with drugs.
When we go about a program that enables the drug abuser to carry on
this kind of activity, we are not sending that clear message. We are
sending a message of some type of confirmation from the government, and
that is not the message we need to send.
Nothing in this bill prevents private funds from conducting a needle
exchange program. This just says that any money that goes through this
committee is not going to be doing it.
There is talk about how this study could be misinterpreted. There is
one part of this study that cannot be misinterpreted. The deaths in
Vancouver. There were only 18 in 1988. This year they anticipate 600
deaths. They are averaging 10 per week. Those are the bodies in the
casket that we heard about earlier here. Those are the people that
through this needle exchange program have proliferated their drug use.
They have made groups that exchange needles, and the result has been
higher HIV, higher deaths.
It is time that we break this drug cycle, send a clear message. Do
not start. It is time that we slow the spread of HIV infection and the
AIDs virus. It is time that we reduce the loss of life in America by
quit bringing this enabling program forward.
It is opposed by the administration's drug czar. It does not have the
blessing of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala,
local police are opposed to it, leading researchers are opposed to it.
The people of America are opposed to needle exchange programs.
I think the only compassionate thing to do is to vote for the Tiahrt
amendment and stop this activity that is proliferating drug abuse and
also allowing for additional loss of life.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1
minute, with the time to be equally divided between myself and the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) and the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), each will be recognized for 30
seconds.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon).
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
would ask the gentleman from Georgia if he has read this amendment
before he spoke on it?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7377]]

Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman have a
question?
Mr. DIXON. I was asking if in fact the gentleman had read the
amendment before he spoke on it?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. What is the point?
Mr. DIXON. My point is that if he had read the amendment, he would
see that this applies to all funds.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Yes.
Mr. DIXON. The gentleman said it applied to Federal funds.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, it is even better if it applies to all funds.
Mr. DIXON. That is what I thought he would say.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I want to tell my colleagues that I will be offering an amendment
after this Tiahrt amendment, whether it passes or fails, and that
amendment will be very similar to a substitute amendment that was
offered in the full Committee on Appropriations that passed, I believe,
with a bipartisan vote.
What it does, it is to simply apply the same restriction on Federal
funds that the bill that was passed back in April of this year applies
to all 50 States so that the Members will have an opportunity to vote
to restrict Federal funds, in other words, the only funds over which we
have control, from being used for needle exchange programs in the
District of Columbia. So we will treat D.C. like we do every other
State.
I think after the debate, Members understand that there are good,
thoughtful, fair Members on both sides of this very difficult issue. So
is it not best to resolve this by limiting the funds that we are
responsible for expending, Federal taxpayers funds? We limit those with
this subsequent amendment, but do not dictate to the District how they
can use their own funds if they choose to decide differently than this
United States Congress.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to speak on this important amendment to H.R. 4380. Congressman Tiahrt
has offered an amendment, to prohibit federal and local funds from
being spent on any program to distribute needles for the hypodermic
injection of any illegal drug. The amendment also prevents payments
from being given to any persons or entities who carry out such a
program.
I oppose Mr. Tiahrt's amendment. This issue has already been fully
addressed by the House Appropriations committee who previously voted to
reject this intrusion into the funding priorities of the District of
Columbia. This legislation would set a dangerous precedent for many
states and localities where needle exchange save lives and operate
effectively to prevent the transmission of HIV and other dangerous
diseases by using state and local funds.
Needle exchange has been shown as an effective HIV prevention too,
and is supported by numerous medical and health related organizations
and scientists. In April of this year, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, the Director of NIH and the National Institute on Drug
Abuse issued a determination that scientific evidence indicates that
needle exchange reduces HIV transmission and absolutely does not
encourage the use of illegal drugs.
Washington, DC, has chosen to use its own funds to address this
urgent local need. Congress should not encroach on DC's choice to
implement successful programs which will undoubtedly prevent the
transmission of HIV.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by
the gentleman from Kansas.
The amendment would not only bar the use of federal funds for needle
exchange programs in the District of Columbia. It would also prohibit
DC government from using its own money of this purpose--money obtained
through local taxation for programs that are widely supported by the
local citizenry.
The gentleman is evidently doing this because he knows that a
prohibition on the use of federal funds is both unnecessary and
meaningless. Secretary Shalala announced this past Spring that the
Administration does not intend to make federal funds available for
needle exchange programs.
But the gentleman is not satisfied with this. He objects to the fact
that local governments across the is country are using their own funds
to conduct these programs.
Under our federal system of government, there is nothing he can do
about this with respect to Boston, or New York, or even Kansas City. So
he has chosen to express his displeasure by targeting the one city in
the United States in which the normal rules of local autonomy do not
apply.
This is unfair to the residents of the District of Columbia, who find
themselves subject to the gentleman's whim even though they do not live
in the gentleman's Congressional district.
But it is also a terrible precedent for the country as a whole.
Because despite the squeamishness of some Members of Congress at the
mere sight of a needle, the truth is that these programs work. They
prevent HIV infection. They do not encourage or increase drug abuse. In
fact, there is overwhelming evidence that they actually help reduce
drug abuse by encouraging injection drug abuser to enter treatment.
As a former prosecutor and a member of the Judiciary Committee, I
take very seriously the epidemic of drug addiction on our society. But
we cannot make responsible public policy based on fear and ignorance.
Study after study--by such respected agencies as the National
Research Council, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, and
the National Institutes of Health--have all reached the same
conclusion.
So have the American Medical Association, the American Public Health
Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers,
the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the American Bar Association.
In April, the Secretary of Health and Human Services followed suit.
Yet instead of announcing that federal funds would be made available,
the Administration bowed to political pressure and announced a
continuation of the status quo.
In other words, needle exchange programs save lives, but cities and
towns that want to have these programs must pay for them out of their
own funds.
That is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, but at least local jurisdictions
are free to do that. If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, the
District of Columbia will no longer have that option.
That is wrong, Mr. Chairman. It is bad enough for legislators to
overrule local decision makers in matters of this kind. But it is the
worst kind of irresponsibility for us to substitute our own uninformed
opinions for the sound judgment of the public health community. To say,
in effect, ``our minds are made up. Don't confuse us with facts.''
I have seen what needle exchange programs can accomplish in
Massachusetts, Mr. Chairman, and I know that they have saved lives.
If this amendment becomes law, more people in Washington, D.C. will
become infected with the AIDS virus. More people will die of AIDS. And
their blood will be on our hands, Mr. Chairman.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tiahrt amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
Page 58, strike lines 6 through 10 and insert the
following:
Sec. 150. No Federal funds appropriated in this Act shall
be used to carry out any program of distributing sterile
needs of syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal
drug.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, is this not the same language that is
currently in the bill?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding to me so that I can explain. This is not the same language
that is in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).

[[Page H7378]]

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is what
the full Committee on Appropriations decided to do, given the fact that
we had a similar, very informative, very heartfelt debate in the full
Committee on Appropriations.
The best way to resolve this issue was to treat the District of
Columbia in the same way that we treat all other 50 States with regard
to the use of Federal taxpayers funds.
What this amendment would do is to say that no Federal taxpayers'
funds can be used in the District of Columbia for needle exchange
programs. It obviously remains silent on local funds.
Much of the debate that we heard addressed Federal funds. We do not
disagree with that, but we do feel that the majority of the Members
would feel satisfied that they had acted as responsibly as possible
with Federal funds but left the District of Columbia's own government
to resolve this issue in the way they thought best.
We heard from the gentleman from Maryland. In Baltimore it works.
Baltimore is an urban area with a very serious drug problem. We hear
from the delegate from the District of Columbia. We have an urban area
with a very serious drug problem. Given the unique and drastic crisis
that they are facing, they have decided to take drastic, unique
measures that may not be appropriate for other areas of the country
that do not have the severity of this problem.
So should we not recognize that at the local level of government they
ought to have some autonomy? I thought that we wanted to devolve as
much responsibility and authority to the local level of government as
possible. That is all we do. Let them decide how to use their own local
funds and their own private funds. The legislation even affects private
funds. It says all funds are prohibited.
Let them use private funds, let them use local funds. They cannot use
Federal funds if this amendment passes.
That is why I would urge acceptance of this amendment as the best way
to deal with a very difficult, complex subject.
I do not argue with the sincerity of the gentleman from Kansas that
has offered this amendment, and I would trust that most cities in
Kansas might be well represented by his conclusion, but we know that
the people in the District of Columbia feel that their crisis dictates
an alternative response.
We know Baltimore has decided to do that, and we know it has worked
in Baltimore. We heard a passionate appeal, let Baltimore do it. Let
D.C. do it. Let those local governments do what they think is in their
best interest. That is the intent of this amendment. I would hope that
all my colleagues would agree with the full Committee on
Appropriations, vote for this amendment and do the right thing by the
citizens of the District of Columbia.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I am very disappointed. I find out that this is the same language
that is currently in the bill. On a voice vote my amendment went down,
so he is, in effect, trying to put the same language back in the bill
that is already in the bill. It is very redundant. I believe that the
gentleman told me that it was not the same language. Maybe it was
semantic, because there is a short, nonessential phrase that is
missing, but essentially it is the same language that is in the bill.
I had hoped that we would deal more on an honest basis here and that
I would have a clear understanding of what the gentleman was trying to
do, but apparently there is some attempt to mislead the House and the
chairman before we had a chance to raise a point of order.
Be that as it may, we will continue on and oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I would like to point out that constitutionally we have a
responsibility, an oath that we swore when we took this office, to
oversee the funds of the District of Columbia. It is called local
control, and that is a misused term. This is a Federal area. It is the
District of Columbia. According to the Constitution, in Article I,
section 8, we have this responsibility, a responsibility that we cannot
shirk.
We have to establish public policy. We have this responsibility to
deal with what is going on here. This is a public policy that affects
us all. It affects us all not only in our pocketbook but affects us all
because this is the city, the capital city of the greatest democracy on
this globe.
We have an obligation to talk about public policy here. It is very
important to know that the facts of the studies that were brought
forward here talked about the additional drug abuse that this policy
has brought on, facts that cannot be disputed, that there are
additional deaths, facts that cannot be disputed, and additional crime
in the area where needles are distributed, and the fact that the police
are forced, they are forced to turn their backs on this activity even
though they know there is illegal drugs going on, even though they know
there is illegal drug paraphernalia being transported and that there
may be drug dealers who prey on the most innocent of our society, our
children, that they are right there in the vicinity. Yet they must turn
their head as a general unwritten policy.
It is a bad public policy. It is a bad public policy. That is why it
is so important that we defeat the amendment that has just been
presented by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), that we vote in
favor of the Tiahrt amendment.

{time} 2145

Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, who keeps repeating the same
nontruths, now; I have heard him in committee, in the Committee on
Rules and on the floor cite a study: What study is the gentleman citing
and who are the authors of the study that support the contention that
the needle exchange programs do not work?
And while the gentleman is looking for it, once again I will say, I
do not know if the gentleman has seen it, but there has been an op-ed
piece in The New York Times by the authors, I believe, of the study
that the gentleman has cited, at least the one listed by the gentleman.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) read it to the gentleman,
where they say that, in fact, ``As the authors of the Canadian study,
we must point out that the officials have misrepresented our
research.'' And it goes on and on.
My only point, and then I will yield to the gentleman, is the
gentleman keeps repeating the big lie over and over and over again. The
gentleman from Virginia got up and refuted it; I told the gentleman in
my opening statement, as I said, 3 hours ago, but the gentleman keeps
saying it. Now, is the gentleman referring to some other study? Is it
the Montreal study that the gentleman is referring to? The gentleman
has said it was.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIXON. I am be glad to yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. It is the Montreal study. It is the Vancouver study. It
was study done by the American Journal of Epidemiology. I am not sure I
said that exactly correctly. But let me say one thing. I am not
disputing that the gentleman has an editorial where he thinks that some
of the conclusions may have been----
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not have an
editorial. I have an editorial opinion piece written by the authors of
the study. And they go on to say that in 25 or 26 cities using the
needle exchange program that infection dropped 5.8 percent. But they go
on to say that needle exchange was not the whole thing.
My only point is, if we are having honest debate and exchanging
ideas, for the gentleman to consistently get up and distort it, it is
wrong.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
Mr. DIXON. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. I think the gentleman is interpreting what I am saying
incorrectly. What I am saying is that we can draw our own conclusions
from the facts that in 1988 they had only 18 deaths from drug use and
by 1998, a decade later, it has increased dramatically to over 10 a
week. Now, what conclusion can we draw from that?
I do not need an opinion piece in The New York Times to tell me that
this activity is encouraging drug abuse and it ends up with more
deaths.
Mr. DIXON. The bottom line is that the gentleman says that this study

[[Page H7379]]

supports his proposition. The people who conducted the study say it
does not; that they approve of needle exchange programs; that it
reduces HIV infection. That is the bottom line.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. Further to the point that the gentleman has made, the authors
of this study, one of them, in testimony before a Senate staff briefing
in July, said, ``The conclusion of our study was entirely
misrepresented in the U.S. Congress as evidence that needle exchange
did not work.'' In fact, the author points out, ``In Canada, local
governments acted on our research,'' the author is speaking, ``on our
research by expanding needle exchange programs.'' That was the correct
conclusion to be drawn from that research.
Mr. DIXON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, my only point is that if
we are going to have legitimate debate on public policy, let us have a
legitimate debate and cite factual material. We should not just get up
and distort it and mumble something and say it represents what it does
not represent, particularly when we have been told three times.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. RIGGS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I think Members may be a little confused at
this point. It appears to me that we are having a debate on an
amendment to an amendment which, while I supported it, the Chair ruled
was defeated on a voice vote. So I am trying to confirm my
understanding, number one.
And the second part of the parliamentary inquiry is at what point
would the Chair intend, then, to put the question on the Moran
amendment to the Tiahrt amendment, which again the Chair ruled had been
defeated on a voice vote prior to the gentleman requesting?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state this is not an amendment to the
Tiahrt amendment. The Moran amendment is a separate amendment to the
bill.
Mr. RIGGS. I see.
The CHAIRMAN. The Tiahrt amendment will be voted on on a postponed
vote first; and then, if ordered, there will be a postponed recorded
vote on the Moran amendment.
Mr. RIGGS. Further parliamentary inquiry, then Mr. Chairman, just to
make sure we understand the sequence of votes. The vote on the Tiahrt
amendment would precede the vote, then, on the Moran amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. If the vote on the Moran amendment is requested, it
will follow the Tiahrt amendment which has been postponed.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that the studies
that I was using as the basis for my testimony are going to be
submitted for the record, and the one that was conducted in Montreal, I
would just like to read from it so the Members can understand. It is in
the summary, and I will point to this.
It says, ``In summary, Montreal needle exchange program users appear
to have higher HIV zero conversion rates than any program nonusers.
This study also indicates that, at least in Montreal, HIV infection is
associated with needle exchange program attendance.''
Now, I am just taking this at face value. It says if people show up,
they have a higher chance of getting it, getting the HIV virus or HIV
infection.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I simply want our
colleagues to be clear, since earlier one of the speakers on the other
side referred to Dr. Varmus. Dr. Varmus does have a lot of credibility
and respect in his very important position as the director of the
National Institutes of Health, and as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Tiahrt) pointed out, we have made a bipartisan commitment in this
Congress over the last 4 years to substantially increase Federal
taxpayer funding for HIV-related research and, we hope, eventually a
cure of that disease.
But the gentleman from Kansas is absolutely correct when he cites the
leading spokesman for the Clinton Administration, General McCaffery, as
being dead set in his opposition to needle giveaway or needle exchange
programs. And I think that needs to be said, because there is, at least
with respect to the drug czar or the chief drug spokesman and
enforcement officer of the Clinton Administration, there is bipartisan
agreement on his part with congressional Republicans that we should not
endorse needle giveaway or exchange programs and, by inference,
sanction drug use and all the social ills and consequences that result
from that.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DIXON. Well, I am glad that my friend from California marches to
the step of the drug czar. I hope to remind him of that on some other
issues that may come up before us here.
But the point I would like to make to the gentleman is that the drug
czar should not dictate the policy of California as it relates to their
own programs. And I do not think the drug czar should dictate how D.C.
residents spend their money.
But let me just go further. We are all after the same thing: Cut down
infectious disease infections and, in particular, HIV, and get people
off of drugs. Now, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? If an
individual is already addicted to drugs, the chances are greater before
he dies from the drugs that he will die from HIV in Washington, D.C. So
the clean needle is not to encourage anyone to use drugs, but maybe to
keep them alive so they can get some rehabilitation.
I think it is absurd to suggest that people use drugs because they
can get clean needles. That just does not happen. But the purpose that
the District has, they believe that the exchange program works. And
they are not trying to encourage the use of drugs. These people are
going to use drugs. They are addicted. But we want them to use clean
needles to keep them alive long enough so that we can withdraw them
from drugs.
Mr. RIGGS. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman. He makes a
passionate point. We just respectfully disagree on that point. And I
would point out that, again, I do not see how we can, because these
funds are still subject to appropriation by the Congress, I do not see
how we can support a policy that, as I certainly said earlier,
facilitates, furthers illegal drug use and actually, as a matter of
public policy, puts us as lawmakers and puts the funders, taxpayers in
the District and Federal taxpayers, in the position of, as I said
earlier, sort of engaging in enabling behavior.
And, furthermore, it sends the worst possible message that we could
send to young people in the District of Columbia. And I hope we are
going to get around to debating here in a short time the amendments to
provide more hope, more educational opportunity to young people in the
District of Columbia.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I could not help hearing the numbers floated around by
the studies. I dare to say that nobody in this body besides myself have
actually read the studies on this; have actually read the scientific
studies.
There have been two long-term prospective studies on this issue. And
it is not about whether we feel it does something good, it is about
whether scientifically it does. There have only been two studies done
in North America that are long-term, large quantity studies in which
the people who are studied at the end of the study are the same people
who were studied at the beginning of the study.
Those two studies are Montreal and Vancouver. They are the only two
studies in the world that are prospective, long-term, large quantity
studies that have the same patients in them at the end of the study as
they had at the beginning. All the other studies, that is not true.
They have a different set of people in them.
And both those studies, the only two studies that are truly reputable
under scientific standards that I have read, and I dare to say nobody
else in this body has read, show without a doubt

[[Page H7380]]

that needle exchanges increase HIV infection. They do not decrease it.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just
want to make clear what I said. I never made any representation that I
read the studies. I made a representation that I had read an op-
editorial piece by two people who claim that they did the study. And I
claimed that based on that, that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt)
was misrepresenting it.
So maybe the gentleman is the only one that should be speaking on
this issue, neither the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) nor I should
speak on it, but I never claimed to read the study.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, let me reclaim my time, if I may, and tell
the gentleman that I am sorry, I did not mean to mistake, in what I
said, about the gentleman's intention.
What I think we need to be focusing on is we need to solve the drug
problem. That is the real issue. Washington has this wonderful habit of
fixing the wrong problems. The problem is drug addiction. It is not
clean needles, it is not dirty needles, it is not HIV. It is drug
addiction. We need to not confuse what the two issues are.
There is no question in the D.C. drug program that they left 45,000
needles out there last year that they did not re-collect. So 45,000
more needles are out there than were there at the beginning of the year
previously, that are contaminated, that are dirty needles.
So I would want this body to know, we should not enable failure on
drug addicts. And we should make sure we know that the issue is drug
addiction and not enabling drug addiction. And that, in fact, clean
needle studies, the only two reputable studies that have, in fact, been
done that are cohort prospective longitudinal studies, that have the
exact same people at the end of the study as they had at the beginning
of the study, are the studies in Montreal and Vancouver, and they show
increased HIV.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, because the gentleman just
referred to the so called only reputable studies that have been made
and, of course, the people who did that study have already said that
their conclusions have been misrepresented here.
Our colleagues are going to vote the way they vote, ignoring probably
the fact that we are talking about an issue that has already been dealt
with by this Congress. But I want the record to show that this
Congress, and as my colleague has pointed out, that we have supported
the National Institutes of Health. We take great pride in supporting
the National Institutes of Health, and take great pride in advertising
our support for increasing the funding for the National Institutes of
Health.

{time} 2200

Why, then, would we run away way from the conclusions of the National
Institutes of Health? And the National Institutes of Health, the
Director, Dr. Harold Varmus; the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, Direcrtor Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Allen Leshner,
Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse; Dr. Claire Broome,
Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control, another
organization; Dr. Helene Gayle, National Center for HIV, STD and TB
prevention; and the CDC.
So the National Institutes of Health and the CDC leadership in their
official capacity issued a consensus statement which states, after
reviewing all of the research, ``After reviewing all of the research,
we have unanimously agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence
that needle exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV
prevention strategy, are an effective public health intervention that
reduces the transmission of HIV and does not encourage the use of
illegal drugs.''
The science says that needle exchange does not increase drug abuse.
The National Institutes of Health consensus statement says, ``A
preponderance of evidence shows either no change or decreased drug use.
Individuals in areas with needle exchange programs have increased
likelihood of entering drug treatment programs.''
The scientific and public health groups that support the needle
exchange programs include the American Medical Association, the
American Public Health Association, the National Academy of Sciences,
the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Scientific leaders in our country are united in their conclusion that
needle exchange reduces HIV infection and does not increase drug abuse.
Do not take public health out of the hands of the science and public
health experts.
I urge my colleagues to separate themselves from any of these
measures that prohibit the use of funds for HIV prevention and have
needle exchange programs to do that.
Members are going to vote the way they are going to vote, for
political or whatever reasons, and everybody has to decide on his or
her own vote. But we cannot ignore the science. If they want to
outweigh the science with other considerations, make sure they know the
responsibility that they have when they do so.
But if we take pride in funding the National Institutes of Health, we
at least should give some respect to the conclusions that they draw
when they say the preponderance of scientific evidence, when we have
studied all of the research, draws us to the conclusion that needle
exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV and do not increase, and in
fact in some instances reduce substance abuse.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, there is a phrase I think is confusing in
here and I am not sure the Members will understand what they are voting
on. It says, ``distributing sterile needs the syringes.''
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. TIAHRT. My inquiry is, if this is a phrase that is unknown to the
Members, will they have a good idea what they are voting on in this
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has not stated a
parliamentary inquiry, but there may be a request to modify the
amendment.

Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
modify the amendment to correct a small typo in the way that it was
actually typed up. It was typed up quickly. And I think the correction
is at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment, as modified, offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
No Federal funds appropriated in this Act shall be used to
carry out any program of distributing sterile needles or
syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, is this a
new amendment that we are now bringing forward or is this something
that is a clarification of what was previously brought forward?
The CHAIRMAN. This is a modification of an existing amendment.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is trying to rewrite
his amendment to the point that I brought up earlier, in that this is
exactly what is in the bill now. So why would we have another waste of
the Members' time, when everyone is trying to get out of here and go
back to their districts to carry on very important business, that we
bring an amendment that is exactly like the language that is in the
bill?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) that the Parliamentarian has
explained that this is not the exact language that is in the bill. And
all we are trying to do, there was a typo here, it was clear that it
was meant to say ``sterile needles or syringes.''
If this is not acceptable, we would simply have to introduce a new
amendment, which we are prepared to do, just

[[Page H7381]]

to fix this small typo. I am not offering any new language to the
amendment that was offered. But the amendment that was offered was
cleared by the Parliamentarian as being different from what is in the
bill.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I
think it is obvious that what the gentleman is doing. It is not the
exact same language, but I would dare say that the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) could not explain the significant difference
between his amendment and what is currently in the bill.
And I would just go on to say that I think that what the gentleman is
doing here is replacing the exact same language and it is a great waste
of our time.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is modified.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), as modified.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Largent

Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment printed in House Report 105-679 offered by Mr.
Largent:
Page 58, insert after line 10 the following:
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if we can have an
agreement that the time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent)
would be 15 minutes, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) would
be 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) would be 10
minutes, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) will be 30 minutes
equally divided between the two sides, if the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) would agree to that, we could proceed and save a lot of
time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with all of the
preceding except for the last item. There are so many speakers on the
Armey amendment, I wonder if the gentleman would consider, say, 50
minutes?
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I will do anything
to cut time, so I would do that.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, with that modification, we would
have no objection on this side.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee
do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Tiahrt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________