[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

  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 181, 
noes 243, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [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.

                          ____________________