[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 110 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7381-H7401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tiahrt). 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 further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 4380.

                              {time}  2211


                     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 further 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, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, pending was amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and a Member opposed each will control 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the Adoption Caucus here at the U.S. 
House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First of all, let me say this: I rise in support of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent). It has nothing to do with 
gender. It has everything to do with children.
  My wife and I are proud parents of two adoptive children. But when 
they have two people, as is currently under the law in the District, 
who have no contract between them come together and petition and obtain 
a child through adoption, what are the rights of the child? The people 
decide that they no longer want to be together. What happens to the 
child? What rights does the child have?
  That is a very, very serious thing. It has nothing to do with gender. 
It has nothing to do with whether single people adopt children or 
whether two women or two men. The thing is that there is no contract, 
there is nothing there legally to protect this child.
  Remember this, the child may have been in a foster home. He has 
already been through possibly a traumatic experience. Now they are 
going to put him in another traumatic experience or her in another 
traumatic experience because there is nothing in the law to say what 
happens. What if one of the parents decides to go to California, 
another one is to go to Maine? What do you do?
  I think it was never intended when the adoption laws were adopted. 
They just assumed that there were couples who would do the adoption, 
but times change.
  I think the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has a very good 
amendment, and I hope my colleagues would support it.

[[Page H7382]]

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. Chairman, Americans categorically reject the notion that the 
government should take a greater role in deciding who can and cannot 
adopt children. By a margin of nearly four to one, voters say we should 
keep the system that we currently have rather than allow the Federal 
Government to take a greater role. Parenting skills, not marital status 
or sexual orientation, should be considered. The Largent amendment says 
if you are single, unattached and date around without any long-term 
commitment, you can still adopt children. But if you are in a long-term 
committed relationship and agree with your partner that you would like 
to raise a child together, you are then prohibited from adopting. We do 
not think this amendment works. It completely overrides the ability of 
domestic law judges who see these children interact with the 
prospective parents to determine what is in the best interest of the 
child. No matter how wonderful a prospective couple may be as potential 
parents, the judge cannot let them adopt. This amendment will not 
directly impact any of us but it will directly harm the thousands of 
orphaned and abandoned children currently living in the District of 
Columbia who desperately want to be adopted. This amendment denies 
those children the opportunity of finding a loving and happy home with 
two monogamous committed parents. We think this is an anti-child 
amendment, an anti-family amendment. We would urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I just would inquire, who has the right to 
close this debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has the right 
to close.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. LARGENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, this is a very short, very simple 
amendment. In fact it is only 30 words long. But it does, I admit, have 
far reaching ramifications about what the House decides today. Thirty 
words. It is not very complicated. In fact it is very, very simple. If 
you have not read it, let me read it for you. It says, ``None of the 
funds contained in this act may be used to carry out any joint adoption 
of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or 
marriage.'' That is the amendment.
  Let me give my colleagues a little background about why we need to 
have this amendment. In 1895, Congress passed the first adoption laws 
for the District of Columbia. They were amended in 1954. Congress 
passed adoption laws for the District of Columbia. Congress did that. 
In 1991, there was a court case that arose in the District of Columbia. 
Two men, living together, petitioned an agency to adopt a young girl. 
They were denied. They appealed it. It went to the District Court of 
Appeals in the District of Columbia and in 1995, 2\1/2\ years ago, 3 
years ago, a District Court of Appeals said that those two individuals 
had the right to jointly adopt the little girl. Now, let me make this 
perfectly clear. That there has never been, in the history of this 
country, a legislative body that has voted and passed a measure that 
said it is okay for unrelated individuals to jointly adopt a child. 
That was done through a District Court of Appeals in the District of 
Columbia. It has now been replicated in a couple of other States as 
well. But let me say, also, that this amendment does not single out 
homosexual couples. This could be a heterosexual couple that does not 
have a marriage contract that binds them together.
  Another point that I want to make about why we need this amendment 
and what it does and what it does not do. Adoption, as the previous 
speaker on our side said, is all about the child. This is a good thing. 
If this is about protecting the rights of anybody, it is about 
protecting the rights of the child. That should be preeminent above 
everything else. And yet when I think about the idea of a child being 
adopted by two people, three people, four people, five people, where 
does it stop, any number of individuals who simply want to get together 
as a group and adopt a child. I mean, it could be Yankee Stadium. The 
crowd at Yankee Stadium decides they want to collectively adopt a 
child. I mean, where do you stop? Where do you rationally stop this 
argument? But they get together and decide they want to adopt a child. 
It really reminds me of one of the cultural things that our young 
people are doing today at rock concerts where they take a young person 
and they toss them into the crowd and they do this body surf across the 
crowd. That in effect is what we do when we say you can have joint 
adoption by two people that have no contractual relationship with one 
another. None. It is like throwing a child out into the crowd and just 
allowing that child to body surf along. We are trying to take a child 
that is obviously coming out of a very traumatic situation and place 
them in one, above all, that gives them a sense of stability. That is 
the whole concept of adoption, rescuing a child from a sense of 
helplessness and an unstable situation and putting them in a stable 
situation.
  I want to say one other thing and I want to repeat this over and over 
again about what this amendment does and what it does not do, because 
there is a lot of misunderstanding about this particular point. If you 
do not remember anything else, remember this. That is, that this 
amendment does not exclude individuals from adopting a child. Because I 
know what the argument already is, that there are a lot of children in 
our inner cities today, crack babies, HIV babies, that they say nobody 
wants. Sure, we want to adopt a child into a home that has a mother and 
a father. We all know and agree upon the fact that the most conducive 
and healthy environment to raise a child is in a home that has a mother 
and a father significantly participating in that child's life and 
nurturing and providing for them. No question about that. I do not 
think there is any argument. But we do not always get what is perfect 
and not every child is wanted by a home with a mother and a father.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARGENT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. The gentleman made a statement that a single person would 
be able to adopt a child. I just want to ask a question, say a single 
person, and we have aided some people to adopt children from other 
countries and what have you, say a single person adopts a child and 
then in a year or so they get into a relationship, whether it be 
heterosexual or whatever. When they enter into this relationship, what 
happens to the child?
  Mr. LARGENT. The child would still be in the custody of the original 
parent who had adopted that child.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) 
has expired.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask unanimous consent to 
address the question and finish the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may ask for unanimous consent only if 
time is congruently increased on both sides. The unanimous consent 
request would have to be for additional time on both sides.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have 
an additional 30 seconds on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude. That single person 
would still have custody. The only way that the additional significant 
other would then be included as a parent is through a marriage contract 
between the two adults in that relationship, which is the same for 
myself and my wife or anybody else.
  So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would just urge my colleagues and 
remind my colleagues that we debated this issue before on the Defense 
of Marriage Act. The House spoke, the Senate spoke, and the President 
signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act that we recognize as a 
family a marriage as one man and one woman.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes it clear that when a child in the 
District of Columbia is adopted by more than one person, those adoptive 
parents must either be married to each other or be related by blood to 
each other.

[[Page H7383]]

  Adoption is the process by which a child who does not have a family 
is taken into a family, becomes a member of a family. And in a family, 
whether it's a big family or just a single adoptive parent and child, 
all the members are related to one another. A child who is jointly 
adopted by people who are not related to each other is not so much 
entering a family as becoming a jointly-held item of property.
  This is a situation which never existed in the law anywhere until a 
short time ago. No legislative body in this country has ever voted that 
unrelated people could jointly adopt a child. This weird policy was 
inflicted on the District by an ill-considered judicial opinion, and in 
that opinion, the judge explicitly said that Congress had not been 
specific enough in defining the rules of joint adoption in the District 
of Columbia. So it is up to us to repair the damage.
  I want to make it perfectly clear--because in discussions of this 
issue there has been some misunderstanding or misrepresentation--that 
this amendment in no way prohibits or builds any kind of barrier to 
adoptions by single individuals, which are very important in the 
District. It is not intended to penalize anyone or to curtail anyone's 
rights, but rather to protect the rights of children to be adopted into 
a permanent, stable family.
  Adopting a child is one of the most loving and generous things 
someone can do. Many of the Members of this body are adoptive parents, 
and that is not only to their credit as individuals, but to the credit 
of Congress as an institution. And since I have been a Member of 
Congress we have repeatedly voted to make it easier for eligible 
children to be adopted and to help those good people who give to 
children without a family a permanent and secure place as members of 
their own families. We have voted to ban racial discrimination that 
might prevent or delay a child's adoption. We have created tax credits 
for adoptive parents. And we have reformed the foster care system so 
children will no longer be stuck for years in a temporary, unstable 
situation instead of being adopted into a family. These were all 
bipartisan efforts, and they have been among the best things we have 
done over these past four years.
  But while we have been working on helping children get into families, 
another conversation has been going on that seems to have turned the 
issue of adoption inside out. Adoption is intended to be for the 
benefit of children. The good that flows to the adoptive parents is 
real, but it is incidental to the good of the children. Adoption exists 
in order to protect the right of each child to grow up in a permanent, 
stable, loving family. Adoptive parents certainly derive a great deal 
of satisfaction, joy and fulfillment out of the relationship, but that 
is not why adoption exists. If anyone in this situation has a ``right'' 
that society needs to protect, it is the right of the child to be 
adopted. But instead, we are hearing more and more about the ``right'' 
of this or that person to adopt, and we find this adoption being 
approved and that one being opposed because of some agenda in cultural 
politics, without regard to the good of the child involved.
  When that starts happening, we are getting way off the track. When 
adoption starts being about making a statement on some social issue, or 
taking a stand for enlightened attitudes, or striking a blow for 
progress, instead of being about finding the best possible home for 
this child here and now, then the children just become commodities in a 
marketplace. When that happens one of the most beautiful and loving 
things a person could do becomes twisted into an ugly form of 
exploitation. I am afraid that is the perspective those D.C. judges had 
when they wanted to experiment with the lives of children by inventing 
joint adoption by unrelated persons.
  Adoption creates a legally-sanctioned, permanent family relationship. 
There are only two other things that do that: marriage and birth. Those 
are the only ways people can become related, united for life as part of 
the same family.
  When a single person adopts a child, a family relationship is formed 
between that parent and child, as strong as the bond of birth or 
marriage. If that single adoptive parent should later marry, his or her 
spouse would be allowed to adopt the child without having to terminate 
the custody of the original adoptive parent. That ``spousal exception'' 
is the only way recognized in the law for a child who already has one 
parent--biological or adoptive--to acquire a second parent. But even 
this is not allowed if the child's other biological parent still 
retains any custodial rights, because the law does not recognize an 
instance in which a child has two fathers or two mothers at the same 
time. For that matter, five or six homosexual or heterosexual--persons 
who do not have a family relationship between themselves, then that 
child is not being adopted into a family because the individuals with 
whom the family relationship is being created do not have a 
relationship among themselves. If John Smith and Mary Jones live 
together--or for that matter, if they just happen to be best of 
friends--and they decide to adopt a child jointly, does that child 
become a member of the Smith family or the Jones family, or both, or 
neither? If there is no legally recognized relationship between Smith 
and Jones, then the relationship the child would have with them would 
not be a family relationship; it would be two distinct, overlapping, 
and mutually contradictory family relationships. If we can compare a 
family with a home, then this kind of arrangement is more like a time-
share condominium.

  To be adopted by two different people who are not members of the same 
family is equivalent to being made a member of two families. And that 
is a denial of the stability adoption is supposed to provide. It may be 
very satisfying for the various people who own a share in the child. 
But it is not the stable membership in a family that society owes to 
each child who is eligible for adoption.
  I cannot close my remarks without addressing one other subject. As I 
have tried to state, this amendment is about children, because adoption 
is about children. But I am fairly confident someone is going to try to 
shift the conversation to the alleged right of gays to adopt, and try 
to portray me as attempting to persecute homosexuals or discriminate 
against them or otherwise show myself to be mean-spirited and 
intolerant. And since I know that argument is coming, let me answer it 
in advance.
  This amendment, I repeat, does not prohibit single persons from 
adopting. It is not intended to make it harder for anyone to adopt a 
child because I really do believe that children without families have a 
right to be adopted, and we have a duty to see to it that as many of 
them as possible are adopted as expeditiously as possible.
  Moreover, just so we understand this clearly, this amendment is not 
intended to make it more difficult for a gay man who lives together 
with another gay man in a committed relationship to adopt a child. If a 
judge finds that such a petitioner would make a suitable parent and 
that such a home would be a good home for a particular child, then, 
fine. This amendment will not get in the way of that adoption.
  But that's not enough for some of the spokesmen of the gay movement. 
They think it's unfair that people of the same sex cannot be married to 
each other. Well, they are entitled to think that's unfair, and they 
are entitled to work to change the law. But meanwhile, that is the law 
and it is public policy, and I think we have a pretty strong consensus 
in this country in favor of that policy. But since they can't get same-
sex marriage written into law, their next strategy is to try to find 
other areas of public life in which they can enact policies in which 
gay couples would be treated as if they were married or almost married 
or just as good as married, and so they work for things like domestic 
partner benefits. Well, they are entitled to do that, too, and 
sometimes they win, sometimes they persuade political majorities or 
corporate managers that treating live-in lovers on the same level as 
spouses is good policy. I don't agree with that conclusion, but it's a 
fair issue to debate.
  But on joint adoption of children, we have to draw the line. Sure, it 
might give some gay rights activist a warm feeling to see gay couples 
treated just as if they were married.But these are real kids we are 
talking about here, real kids who have already had a rough start, who 
are already hurt by whatever it was that caused them to become eligible 
for adoption. Those kids have a right to a family. It is simply wrong 
to turn them into trophies from the culture war, to exploit them in 
order to make some political point.
  So to the advocates of gay rights, let me say this. If you want to 
adopt a child, go file your petition and convince a judge that you will 
be a good mother or father to a child in need and then love that child 
and raise him or her up, and I assure you, I will thank you and praise 
you because there is probably nothing finer that you will ever do with 
your life. I know that I have done nothing finer than to be a father to 
my own children.
  But if you want to turn some poor child into a pawn in some political 
prank, if you want to exploit the misfortune of an innocent child just 
to make a point about how persecuted you are, then shame on you. Go 
pick on someone your own size.
  This House is pretty sharply divided about how best to protect the 
rights of gay people in our society, but over the past few years we 
have shown that we are pretty united in our commitment to protect the 
rights of children who need to be adopted. We do not have to reach an 
agreement today about the rights of gay people because that is not what 
this amendment is about. It's about adoption, something most of us 
already agree on. I hope the members of this House will understand that 
and support this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Oklahoma and 
I share the belief and hope that all children in this world grow up in 
a stable, loving family. For that, I applaud

[[Page H7384]]

his intent. But there is a reason why this amendment was defeated so 
soundly in committee that the Republican members did not even ask for a 
recorded vote in committee. The reason is this was poorly drafted. 
Members need to know despite the good intent of the gentleman, the 
impact of this measure would be, for example, to allow a philandering 
married husband who abuses his wife on a regular basis to be able to 
legally adopt a child. But if two nuns felt God's calling to adopt a 
disabled, blind child from Romania under this amendment, they would be 
prohibited from doing so.
  Another example. Under this well-intended effort by the gentleman, 
the real result would be if a couple that had been married for a few 
years, had never been faithful to each other, both were alcoholics and 
both abused each other, wanted to adopt a child, they could. Yet a man 
and woman who lived committed to each other, yet for reasons perhaps 
that I would disagree with had never signed a marriage contract but yet 
they lived together faithfully for 30 years wanted to adopt a child, 
they could not. I would ask Members, which children would be better 
off, adopted by two nuns that felt God's calling or an abusive husband 
and wife?
  It is not the intent of the gentleman from Oklahoma with which I 
disagree. It is the impact. Unfortunately intent is not good enough 
when you have real consequences, and the real consequences I believe of 
this amendment could be children, in this country, from Romania and 
throughout the world who desperately need a loving home in which to be 
raised would be denied that loving opportunity.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Largent 
amendment which would prohibit joint adoptions in the District of 
Columbia by unmarried couples. As has been alluded to, this is really 
the same amendment that was rejected already by the Appropriations 
Committee, and voila, it is here on the floor. Most Americans agree 
that the Federal Government should stay out of family law decisions. In 
fact, Americans categorically reject the notion that the government 
should take a greater role in deciding who can and who cannot adopt 
children. By a margin of nearly four to one, it was 74 to 19 percent, 
the public believes that we should keep the system we currently have 
rather than allow the Federal Government to take a greater role. 
Congress has traditionally stayed out of family law, recognizing that 
State and local governments are best suited to address those issues. I 
think we all agree that the best interest of the child should be the 
deciding factor in setting adoption policy at the local level. This is 
best determined by local, trained professionals and not Members of 
Congress. Psychological Association reports that studies comparing 
groups of children raised by gay and by non-gay parents find no 
developmental differences between the two groups of children in their 
intelligence, social and psychological adjustment, popularity with 
friends, development of sex role identity or development of sexual 
orientation. In fact, in 48 states and the District of Columbia, 
lesbian and gay people are permitted to adopt when a judge finds that 
the adoption is in the child's best interest.

  I want to point out that as of June, there were 3,600 children in the 
D.C. foster care system that were waiting to be adopted. It is hard 
enough to find good homes for the children and it would be a travesty 
to make children languish in institutions at great cost to taxpayers 
when they can have caring, loving homes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to leave family law decisions 
where they belong, at the local level and do not lose sight of the 
thousands of children in foster care who would be deprived of a good, 
loving, caring home if this amendment were to pass.
  Vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is an example 
of how bad cases can make bad law. I look forward to working with my 
colleague from Oklahoma on legislation that will comprehensively 
address the problems of child abuse and the child welfare system in 
this country, but I think this points out why we should not deal with 
these kinds of complex issues in an appropriations bill.
  I say that having some experience with this issue, having until 
recently been the Cabinet Secretary for Child Welfare in the State of 
New Mexico. We are not talking here about the children for whom there 
is a long line of parents waiting for a healthy baby but of the 
thousands of children who languish in foster care who with good grace 
often fall in love with their foster parents.

                              {time}  2230

  It is those situations, and the opportunity to have a forever set of 
parents who may not be married to one another, that is something that 
we should not prohibit in statute. We must look on a case-by-case basis 
at the best interests of each and every child, even if in a perfect 
world we cannot achieve perfection in our view of it for all children.
  And so let us leave this to the case-by-case basis and not close off 
an alternative that is now available to judges in the District of 
Columbia. That is the current law, and I believe it should remain so 
until we very carefully look at our alternatives.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this is the first I have heard 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) speak on the floor, and 
we are very pleased to have her as our colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dixon).
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I do not think any of us, Mr. Chairman, can 
put it any better than the gentlewoman from New Mexico. The fact is 
that this is an attempt to turn around a case in the District of 
Columbia appellate court which said that they looked at the particular 
circumstances and they allowed a gay couple to adopt.
  Under this proposed amendment married people could adopt, a gay 
individual could adopt, blood-related people could adopt. But who could 
not adopt? Two people who have a relationship, perhaps godparents under 
some circumstances, unrelated, not married. But most importantly, it is 
aimed at a court decision that said under the circumstances the 
placement with a gay couple was the best placement for that child.
  Mr. Chairman, we should leave it to the court to decide and not 
legislate it here in Congress.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time is left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the Child Welfare League of America says of this 
amendment, ``This amendment would unnecessarily limit the pool of 
families available for these children who desperately need families.''
  Make no mistake. This is a gay-bashing amendment, but it is going to 
take down a lot of kids with it.
  This matter of adoption rests entirely with the courts. They do it on 
the best interests of the child. They will not allow a child to go 
except where a child must be.
  In the District we have many hard-to-place kids. Three thousand six 
hundred kids are in foster care and are waiting to be adopted. Our 
whole foster care system is in receivership. Is this a family values 
Congress or not? Are two parents better than one? Is it not the child 
who matters? Studies have been done that show no developmental 
differences, for example, between gay and nongay parents.
  The language here is aimed at gays. Who it hits are kids in the 
District. There are substantial advantages to a child in joint 
adoptions, even when the parents are not married. There are inheritance 
rights, there are insurance rights, there is Social Security. We ought 
to encourage the added security of joint adoptions, not discourage it.
  This is family law. Do not bring it into this Chamber. Defeat this 
amendment. Save the kids.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Largent 
Amendment to the D.C. Appropriations Bill. This legislation would 
prevent joint adoptions by individuals who are not related by blood and 
marriage. In effect, this

[[Page H7385]]

amendment, under the guise of ensuring the security of children, would 
prevent otherwise qualified couples from adopting the tens of thousands 
in need of adoption.
  We are all aware that this amendment would prevent gay and lesbian 
couples from adopting children. I find it hard to believe that there 
are still members of this Congress who can believe that sexual 
orientation has a direct affect on a person's ability to raise a child. 
The American Psychological Association has conclusively decided that 
there is no scientific data which indicates that gay and lesbian adults 
are not fit parents. Research by the APA has also determined that 
having a homosexual parent has no affect on a child's intelligence, 
psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, 
development of sex-role identity and development of sexual orientation. 
To maintain assumptions otherwise is unfair, and scientifically 
unfounded.
  It is my belief, and I'm sure that with a moment's consideration you 
will all agree, that the issue of adoption is best decided by parents 
and trained professionals on a case-by-case basis, based on the best 
interest of the child. We should not deprive children of families that 
are capable of raising them. How can you cheat a child out of a happy 
home and a caring family? How can you deny a person the right to share 
their love, their home, and the security they can offer a child?
  Raising a child is a very personal issue, one that deserves the time 
and consideration of individual case-by-case evaluations. Anything else 
is simply discriminatory. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Largent 
Amendment, and let each child and each potential parent have the right 
to an individual evaluation.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Largent 
Amendment. One of the most important things we can do in this chamber 
is pass legislation which improves the welfare of children in our 
country. In the District of Columbia, there are 3,600 children in the 
foster care system, waiting for suitable parents to given them a home.
  There are half a million children in foster are in this country, but 
four out of five of these children are never adopted. Why would we put 
new, unfounded, discriminatory limits on the number of families that 
can provide a good home to a child?
  The answer, it seems, is to satisfy a social agenda which has singled 
out lesbians and gays as its current most favored target. It is 
unfortunate that once again we are debating not how to advance civil 
rights, but whether to take a step backward in time, and make policy 
based on prejudice, intolerance and ignorance of the facts. In the 
service of this social agenda, the amendment would create a senseless 
policy, interfering in the ability of parents and trained professionals 
to make family placement decisions, and affecting both heterosexual and 
homosexual unmarried adults.
  The amendment is the essence of old fashioned discrimination, 
imposing clear limits on an individual's participation in society based 
on their group status, rather than their abilities.
  But let me return to the welfare of children. All the evidence shows 
that lesbian and gay parents are as good at parenting as any other 
group of parents. The American Psychological Association reports that, 
``the belief that children of gay and lesbian parents suffer deficits 
in personal development has no empirical foundation.''
  Studies document that children of gay and lesbian parents show no 
marked difference in their psychological adjustment, intelligence, 
popularity with friends, or development of sex role identity, when 
compared with children of heterosexual parents. In addition, lesbian 
and heterosexual women do not differ markedly in their overall mental 
health, or in their approaches to child rearing.
  In all these areas, the research finds no difference. There are half 
a million children waiting for homes and we are debating whether to let 
prejudice deny children a home with a family.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment puts a right wing social agenda above 
the welfare of children and families. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
Largent Amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Largent amendment. Whatever my 
personal opinion in this matter, decisions about who can and cannot 
adopt a child should be left to the states and not the Federal 
government. Americans do not want the Federal Government dictating 
adoption laws. These matters are properly left to the states and local 
adoption judges.
  In addition, this amendment is written in such a way as to have a 
number of unintended and negative consequences. As has been pointed 
out, the Largent amendment would prohibit two nuns from adopting a 
child.
  I don't believe we should hold the District of Columbia to a 
different adoption standard than we do with the other fifty states. I 
therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity 
to speak on this important amendment to H.R. 4380. Representative 
Largent has proposed an amendment to the D.C. Appropriations Act which 
will prohibit joint adoptions in the District by people who are not 
related by marriage or blood.
  Congress has traditionally stayed out of family law, recognizing that 
state and local governments are better suited to address those issues. 
The ability of parents and trained professionals to make a decision of 
a case by case basis based on the best interests of the child, should 
be preserved. For 3 years, there have been attempts to attach language 
like the language that Representative Largent is introducing today. 
Each time such efforts have failed as it should! This type of 
legislation will put DC's children at risk.
  In Washington, DC in June of this year, there were 3,600 children in 
the foster care system waiting to be adopted. These children need 
loving consistent care and a safe home. There is no reason to deny 
those potential adoptive parents the opportunity to raise a child in a 
loving home, and there simply is no reason to deny a child languishing 
in foster care the opportunity to be loved and nurtured and protected. 
All our children deserve to be cherished by parents that adore them.
  Representative Largent may argue that this amendment will provide 
greater comfort and security for children. This is absurd. To even 
suggest that a healthy and loving unmarried couple should not be 
permitted to provide a child with an environment where he or she can 
have the chance to fully develop intellectually and socially is 
outrageous. In fact, 48 of the states and DC currently allow lesbian 
and gay people to adopt when the judge finds that the adoption is in 
the child's best interest.
  This amendment makes no sense. It would allow single parent adoption 
and disallow joint adoption. Clearly, two parents, two loving legal 
guardians offer a child greater legal protection, security and benefits 
for a child than one parent. This amendment could never be in the best 
interest of any child.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) 
will be postponed.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendments 
shall be in order except for the following amendments which shall be 
considered read, shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand for 
division of the question, and shall be debatable for the time 
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member 
opposed thereto:
  Mr. Bilbray, made in order under the rule for 10 minutes; Mr. Barr, 
regarding ballot initiative and the Controlled Substances Act, for 10 
minutes; and Mr. Armey, made in order under the rule for 30 minutes.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bilbray

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bilbray:
       Page 58, insert after line 10 the following:


            banning possession of tobacco products by minors

       Sec. 151. (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     individual under 18 years of age to possess any cigarette or 
     other tobacco product in the District of Columbia.
       (b) Exception for Possession in Course of Employment.--
     Subsection (e) shall not apply with respect to an individual 
     making a delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in 
     pursuance of employment.
       (c) Penalties.--Any individual who violates subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following penalties:
       (1) For any violation, the individual may be required to 
     perform community service or attend a tobacco cessation 
     program.
       (2) Upon the first violation the individual shall be 
     subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.
       (3) Upon the second and each subsequent violation, the 
     individual shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 
     $100.
       (4) Upon the third and each subsequent violation, the 
     individual may have his or her driving privileges in the 
     District of Columbia suspended for a period of 90 consecutive 
     days.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray)

[[Page H7386]]

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, not too long ago the President of the United States 
made a statement to the news media that as far as he knew it was 
illegal for minors to smoke in every State in this Union. Well, sadly, 
Mr. Chairman, that is not true. In fact only 21 States of Union have 
minor possession and use of tobacco as being illegal.
  That is embarrassing all of us in government. But what is even more 
embarrassing than the President not knowing this, what is even more 
embarrassing than States across this country still not having minors' 
use of tobacco as being illegal, what is really embarrassing, Mr. 
Chairman, is that the Federal District has not taken the time to make 
it illegal for minors to possess and smoke tobacco products.
  The Federal Government, in our oversight, embarrassingly has created 
a refuge for underage smoking here in Washington, D.C. While Virginia 
has made it illegal, while Maryland has sent a strong message to its 
children that they should not smoke, those of us in Congress and 
Washington, D.C. have said, well, we have overlooked it.
  And it is embarrassing, Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out that 
it is embarrassing not to those of us in government, it is embarrassing 
to the Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and the American 
Heart Society, and even the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which I am 
an original cosponsor of their bill. They are embarrassed with this 
bill because it points out that we have missed the mark here in 
Washington, D.C.
  All my bill asks, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that we send a clear 
message to my children, to your children, that there are certain 
behaviors that are not appropriate for children. One is the purchase 
and the consumption and the possession of alcohol. Another is the 
purchase, the consumption and the possession of tobacco. And I think 
all of us should forget about the embarrassment and move forward to 
protect our children.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to send a very clear message that this Congress 
feels it is inappropriate for underage children to smoke, to possess 
tobacco, and that only adults should participate in that behavior not 
just in Virginia and Maryland, but also here in Washington, D.C., the 
Nation's Capital.
  I think this will help to send a message, a clear message, to all the 
legislatures that have overlooked this little detail, and they will do 
what other legislatures are doing now, and that is passing laws to send 
a clear message that, children, drinking is wrong for minors and so is 
smoking.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Virginia opposed to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am in opposition to the amendment, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, as does the 
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Lung Association. Like 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), I was a cosponsor of the 
Healthy Kids Act. Many of us were. It would have established tough new 
penalties against companies for targeting tobacco products at our 
children.
  But this amendment is different. Instead of penalizing the tobacco 
companies for targeting our children, the gentleman's amendment 
penalizes the children for possessing their products.
  Mr. Chairman, before we go after kids for possessing these products, 
maybe we should go after the merchants who sell their tobacco products 
to under-aged children. That is what the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids 
is.
  As my colleagues know, the Department of Health and Human Services 
did a survey and showed that 42 percent of retailers in the D.C. area 
sell tobacco products to minors. We are told that this is a major 
problem in the District of Columbia. And to blame it on the children 
without giving responsibility to the tobacco companies seems to be 
blaming the victim.
  Mr. Chairman, after making children pawns of decades of sophisticated 
marketing techniques by the tobacco industry, it would really seem that 
to take them off the hook and to criminalize possession by children who 
are not old enough to know better, but certainly tobacco companies are, 
is misplaced enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), is he opposed to the 
State of Virginia's law making it illegal for minors to possess and 
consume tobacco?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman 
that we want enforcement first.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I am just asking, is the gentleman opposed to the 
Virginia law?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I am not opposed to the Virginia law.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I also am glad to hear the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) say what he had to say about the Virginia law.
  Mr. Chairman, this just simply includes children in the chain of 
responsibility. It does not exclude the ability to hold others 
responsible.
  In fact, in the District of Columbia and in all 50 States, because of 
a 1992 law passed by the Congress, it is illegal to sell tobacco 
products. The 19-year-old store clerk has a penalty if he sells tobacco 
products to the 17-year-old purchaser, but the 17-year-old purchaser 
has no penalty. In fact, the 17-year-old purchaser can stand in the 
parking lot of the convenience store and smoke the pack of cigarettes 
while the 19-year-old store clerk and the store manager and the store 
owner are paying fines or having the kind of penalties this Congress 
said should be on that side of the counter.
  The gentleman's legislation just says that there should be penalties 
on both sides of the counter; that the only person involved in this 
transaction who has no consequences for their action should not be the 
teen smoker. I urge that we support this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would like to know where my 
city council stands on this bill. Out of respect for me, I would have 
thought that the Member would have allowed me to present this matter to 
my city council instead of springing it on the Rules Committee and on 
me.
  This bill requires that the city council spend money setting up a 
tobacco cessation program, and it lays out what the penalties should 
be. Maybe the penalties should be more. Maybe they should be less. Why 
should not my folks have the same opportunity the gentleman says 
Virginia had to decide whether or not to do this?
  I cannot say they would not want to do this. They have just passed a 
whole spate of very good anti-tobacco laws.
  I do not second-guess my own council, and I live in the District. Who 
is the gentleman, without even presenting the matter to the council, to 
presume to legislate for them? This is precisely the kind of disrespect 
for me personally and for my district that goes on in this body without 
people even thinking about it.
  Give me the opportunity, I say to the Member, to present this to my 
city council. They may well go for it.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman from 
Washington, after 23 years, and as a parent who brings his children 
here to live here periodically at times, I think that every child of 
D.C. should have the protection without waiting another 23 years for 
oversight.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has less 
than 30 seconds remaining and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman),

[[Page H7387]]

who has been a long time leader in the fight for healthy children.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot we should do in order to 
reduce teen tobacco use and are obviously not doing it. This amendment 
is a step but I cannot tell if it is a step forward or a step back. It 
might result in fewer kids using tobacco. It might not. Overall, it is 
hard to see that this amendment will make much of a difference at all. 
It is the kind of a thing that a city council ought to deliberate on.
  One thing is certain, this approach is not balanced. The focus is 
misplaced. All the emphasis is on punishing children and none is on 
stopping the tobacco industry from preying on them.
  There is no evidence that this House is committed to protecting 
children from tobacco. Earlier this year, this House failed to provide 
the funds needed by the FDA for enforcement of laws prohibiting sale of 
tobacco to minors.

                              {time}  2245

  Then we failed to pass comprehensive tobacco legislation. And, just a 
few weeks ago, a sting conducted by the American Lung Association 
revealed that 15-year-olds could buy cigarettes right here in the 
Capitol. On the House side of our Capitol, a 15-year-old girl was able 
to buy cigarettes every time she tried.
  Now, this Congress, which does not enforce current law in the 
Capitol, is telling the District of Columbia to adopt a new law to 
punish kids. They are not strengthening the laws against retailers, 
they are not enforcing existing laws against selling cigarettes to 
minors, they are not providing money for this unfunded mandate, they 
are not stopping tobacco company advertising, they are not changing the 
predatory behavior of the tobacco industry.
  In considering the impact of this amendment, do not delude yourself. 
Do not believe that simply passing a law that shifts responsibility to 
the young will make a real difference. We are the adults, presumably, 
in this body, and we have not taken our responsibilities.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as any of those of us that are parents would know, you 
do whatever, whenever and however you can, whenever you can, to help 
your children. D.C. has laws against sale. It has laws against buying 
tobacco. But, sadly, D.C. does not have laws against possession and 
consumption. The gentleman from California may blame this on one or the 
other.
  Now is the time, either vote for kids not to smoke, or walk away and 
wash your hands. It is not time to play.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following for the Record.
                                        American Lung Association,


                              San Diego and Imperial Counties,

                                                   August 5, 1998.
     Hon. Brian Bilbray,
     House of Representatives,
     District Office, San Diego, CA.
       Dear Congressman Bilbray: It has come to our attention that 
     you are introducing an amendment to the Washington D.C. 
     appropriations bill that would criminalize youth who buy 
     tobacco but would add no penalties or enforcement against 
     retailers who sell tobacco to minors.
       As you know from the sting conducted by the American Lung 
     Association, minors in D.C. and in other parts of the country 
     can easily buy tobacco products. In San Diego, thanks to 
     active enforcement programs directed towards retailers, the 
     sales rate to minors has been drastically reduced to 21% from 
     over 60% five years ago. However, even though sales to minors 
     in our region are lower than other parts of the country, 21% 
     is still unacceptably high.
       Those who supply illegal substances to youth must be the 
     primary focus of enforcement operations, whether the 
     substance is alcohol, drugs, or tobacco. Penalizing users and 
     not suppliers is not an effective enforcement strategy.
       You have co-sponsored a bill, Hansen-Meehan-Waxman that 
     correctly punishes the tobacco industry for its 
     unconscionable targeting of American youth with a deadly and 
     addictive substance. We would expect the same approach to the 
     retailers that sell tobacco to minors.
       Turning children into lifetime tobacco addicts has been the 
     focus of a multi-billion dollar effort by the tobacco 
     industry. Their campaign has included sophisticated marketing 
     supplemented by efforts to weaken the enforcement of laws 
     that prevent tobacco sales to minors. A major strategy of the 
     tobacco industry is to penalize kids for succumbing to the 
     sophisticated efforts of tobacco manufacturers and retailers, 
     rather than holding the industry accountable.
       We urge you to remove your amendment to the D.C. 
     appropriations bill. If you have any questions, do not 
     hesitate to contact me at 619-297-3901.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Debra Kelley,
     Vice President, Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                        American Lung Association,
                                   Washington, DC, August 6, 1998.
       Dear Representative: The American Lung Association opposes 
     the Bilbray amendment to the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations bill that penalizes kids for the possession of 
     tobacco products.
       Penalizing children has not been proven to be an effective 
     technique to reduce underage tobacco usage. In fact, 
     penalties may adversely effect existing programs that are 
     proven to work and are required, such as compliance checks 
     utilizing young people. The Bilbray amendment would make 
     these checks illegal. The Synar Amendment on marketing 
     tobacco to children could not be enforced because it would be 
     illegal for supervised teens to attempt to purchase tobacco.
       Attempts to put the blame on our children, the pawns of 
     decades of sophisticated marketing by the tobacco industry, 
     instead of the manufacturers and retailers, is just another 
     smokerscreen by big tobacco. The tobacco industry favors 
     shifting both the blame and the attention away from their 
     marketing efforts onto the shoulders of young persons.
       For example, a 1995 study by the Maryland Department of 
     Health and Mental Hygiene discovered that 480 minors were 
     penalized for possessing tobacco but no merchants were fined 
     for selling tobacco to minors. On July 16 and 21, 1998, the 
     American Lung Association conducted an undercover ``sting'' 
     operation to determine whether teens could purchase tobacco 
     in the U.S. Capitol complex. Five out of nine attempts were 
     successful, and in the House office buildings, all attempts 
     were successful. Here is clear proof that existing laws 
     regarding selling to teens are not being enforced. Existing 
     laws and regulations need to be enforced.
       The tobacco industry favors criminalizing our kids. This 
     alone should be adequate reason for you to reject the Bilbray 
     amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill. The best solution 
     for this Congress is to pass H.R. 3868, the Bipartisan NO 
     Tobacco for Kids Act sponsored by Representatives Hansen, 
     Meehan, Waxman and more than 100 other members of the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                 John R. Garrison,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                               Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,

                                   Washington, DC, August 6, 1998.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids 
     opposes the amendment that may be offered later today by 
     Representative Bilbray to the District of Columbia 
     appropriations bill (H.R. 4380). This amendment would 
     penalize youth for possession of tobacco products without 
     creating a thoughtful, comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco 
     use among children and without first ensuring that adults who 
     illegally sell tobacco to kids are held responsible.
       There is no silver bullet to reducing tobacco use among 
     kids, but this amendment, in the absence of other effective 
     policies, will do little to end tobacco's grip on the 
     children of D.C. There is little evidence to indicate that in 
     the absence of a concerted, comprehensive program, penalizing 
     kids will work to reduce tobacco use rates. Rather, 
     experience from other cities indicates that only a 
     comprehensive program which vigorously enforces laws against 
     selling tobacco to kids through compliance checks of 
     retailers, and which included restrictions on tobacco ads 
     aimed at kids, will be effective.
       The narrow focus of this bill will further divert resources 
     away from effective enforcement of the current laws that 
     prohibit retailers from selling to kids. Although the 
     District of Columbia penalizes retailers for selling to kids, 
     this law is not being enforced adequately. According to 
     Department of Health and Human Services, compliance checks 
     showed that 42.3 percent of retailers in D.C. sell tobacco 
     products to minors.
       Additionally, this amendment does not address the fact that 
     the tobacco industry spends $5 billion a year marketing its 
     products. Kids in D.C. continually see tobacco ads on 
     billboards, but shelters, and storefronts. The tobacco 
     industry's marketing tactics work: 85 percent of kids who 
     smoke use the three most heavily advertised brands (Marlboro, 
     Camel and Newport).
       Any discussion of holding children responsible for their 
     addiction to tobacco should only come after or as part of a 
     comprehensive approach, which insures that adults are being 
     held responsible for marketing and selling to children. 
     Therefore, we ask that you oppose this amendment. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Matthew L. Myers,
                                         Executive Vice President.

  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise this evening in 
support of the Bilbray amendment.
  I recognize in this amendment the heart and soul of a bill I 
introduced in June of 1997--H.R. 2034, the Tobacco Use by Minors 
Deterrence Act.
  While the Bilbray amendment moves in the right direction, by 
providing community service, fines and loss of driver's license for 
kids who are caught with tobacco products, I urge my colleagues to 
consider the other aspects of the teen access problem that remain to be 
addressed.

[[Page H7388]]

  The bill I authored provides loss of license to sell by retail 
outlets for repeated infractions.
  It requires parental notification of violations by kids.
  It requires training of employees, posting of notices, and lock-out 
devices for vending machines.
  In short, it provides for a shared responsibility by kids, families, 
law enforcement, and retailers to protect the health, safety, and 
welfare of our kids against tobacco use while protecting the right of 
informed adults to make a choice.
  I urge my colleagues to remember that tobacco is a legal product for 
informed, consenting adults.
  The approach found in the Bilbray amendment, and in my bill, 
encourages respect for the law, but at the same time it recognizes that 
tobacco is a legal product, which is important to my Congressional 
District.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Bilbray amendment 
because it sends the right kind of message to underage youth.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity 
to speak on this important amendment to H.R. 4380. Congressman Bilbray 
has proposed an amendment to the D.C. Appropriations Act which will 
make it illegal for anyone under 18 years old to possess any cigarette 
or other tobacco product in the District of Columbia. This is a good 
desire but one that should be handled by the local D.C. Government.
  I oppose Representative Bilbray's amendment because this amendment 
will penalize youth for possession of tobacco products without creating 
a thoughtful comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco use among children 
and without first ensuring that adults who illegally sell tobacco 
products to children are held responsible.
  Penalizing children has never proven to be an effective technique to 
reduce underage tobacco usage. In fact, we know that penalties may 
adversely affect exiting programs that are proven to work. Attempts to 
put the blame of the tobacco industry on our children, who are simply 
pawns of decades of sophisticated marketing by the tobacco industry is 
ineffective and wrong.
  The narrow focus of this bill will further divert resources away from 
effective enforcement of the current laws that prohibit retailers from 
selling to kids. This law is not being enforced adequately in D.C. 
According to the Dept. of Health and Human Services, compliance checks 
showed that over 40 percent of retailers in DC sell tobacco products to 
minors. Why not help DC focus on making this law work against those who 
willingly sell tobacco to our children.
  We should only hold children responsible for their participation in 
smoking after we have effectively held the adults who sell and 
manufacture tobacco responsible for their role in addicting our 
children to this lethal product.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 517, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia:
       Page 58, insert after line 10 the following:
       Sec. 151. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used to conduct any ballot initiative which seeks to legalize 
     or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the possession, 
     use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any 
     tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield two minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who has been a leader in 
the war against mind-altering drug usage.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this piece of legislation says that basically the 
District of Columbia should not and shall not make marijuana a legal 
substance. Of course, marijuana federally is an illegal substance. This 
is a Federal district. I think that is just logical.
  Let us talk a little bit about what marijuana is and what it does. If 
we think that kids should not smoke tobacco, then I think it is a 
logical step that probably we should not make this available for kids 
or anybody to be smoking marijuana.
  A lot of people say marijuana produces no ill-effects to the people 
that use it. That is a fallacy. We find that marijuana affects motor 
coordination, reasoning and memory, and marijuana has a much higher 
level of carcinogens than tobacco.
  Some people say marijuana is not a dangerous drug. Let me tell you, a 
study of patients in shock trauma who have been in automobile accidents 
found that 15 percent of those who have been in a car or motorcycle 
accident have been smoking marijuana. Seventeen percent have been 
smoking both marijuana and drinking. When the City of Memphis, 
Tennessee, tested all reckless drivers for drugs, it was discovered 
that 33 percent showed signs of marijuana use.
  Now, I think this is just a logical step. If we want a drug-free 
America, if we want a drug-free workplace, if we want drug-free prisons 
and drug-free schools and drug-free highways, we probably ought to have 
a drug-free capital, to say to prohibit the legalization of marijuana 
in the District of Columbia, where millions of our constituents come, 
year in and year out, day in and day out, week in and week out. They 
ought to be safe.
  We ought to do our best, not just for the safety of the citizens of 
the District of Columbia, but for the safety of our constituents who 
come here to visit, to come here to learn, school kids that come 
through this Capitol, and certainly people who come here to do 
business, the country's, the Nation's business, day in and day out.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman that offered this 
amendment what I know the gentleman knows, and that is that this 
amendment is moot. There are an insufficient number of signatures 
gathered. The petition was rejected with a statistical level of 95 
percent confidence that there were insufficient valid signatures of 
registered voters for the District as a whole.
  I do not need to go into all of this. The conclusion is that the 
recommendation of the Board of Elections and Ethics is that the 
initiative measure be rejected, which would have allowed the medical 
use of marijuana.
  So we are not talking about anything of consequence. The District of 
Columbia voters have voted. This has been rejected. This is the process 
that should have been pursued, instead of us trying to impose our will 
on the District of Columbia voters. They have acted as apparently you 
would like them to act, and, from your perspective, I am sure, have 
done the right thing.
  This is moot, it is extraneous, it is late, and we have no reason to 
have taken this up. I wish the gentleman had withdrawn the amendment, 
as we requested.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely amazed by the capacity of this body to 
debate settled issues. This is the second time that these folks have 
tried to gather enough signatures for medical marijuana in the 
District, and this is the second time it has failed.
  My staff, in order to keep this from wasting the time of this body, 
went so far as to wake up the Board of Elections and have verified that 
there are not enough signatures. The fact that there are not enough 
signatures for the second time says pretty definitively that the 
residents of the District of Columbia have decided this issue.
  The medical marijuana debate goes on. Anybody trying to do an 
innovative approach, unproven, I believe undergoing tests, but as yet 
unproven, and trying to do that in the District of Columbia, must 
surely know that this Congress is going to strike it down. That is 
exactly what happened, except the people struck it down first.

[[Page H7389]]

  I am going to ask Members at 5 minutes to 11 to voice vote this, to 
consider it moot, so that we can go on with our business.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it always strikes me as rather odd that people take 
hours and hours and hours debating amendments, and then, when one comes 
along that they disagree with, oh, they are so concerned about the 
Members having to be here.
  Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, this is not a moot 
point. The fact of the matter is that, yes, it appears at this point in 
time that the signatures on the ballot are wrong and are invalid.
  There is time to appeal that, plus the fact, Mr. Chairman, history 
dictates to us that these drug legalization people do not give up. What 
they will try and do is they will try and come back again and again and 
again. Even if the appeal of the invalidity of this ballot referendum 
is sustained, they will immediately, I am sure, begin the process once 
again.
  All this amendment does is it prevents funds, appropriated funds, 
from being used in any way to fund a ballot initiative. It strikes not 
only at the ballot itself, but at using any funds for the development 
of that ballot, for publicity surrounding that ballot, the whole range 
of things that these drug legalization people do, over and over and 
over again.
  If the folks on the other side are against legalization of marijuana, 
I do not understand why they would be opposed to this amendment. This 
amendment simply says that no monies appropriated under this bill shall 
be used for ballot initiatives for drug legalization. That includes 
marijuana. That includes all other Schedule I controlled substances, 
such as heroin, such as cocaine, such as crack cocaine, and the list 
goes on and on. That is what we are trying to get at. Oh, but a portion 
of the passion that they reserve for the tobacco issue would be 
dedicated to the issue of antidrug efforts, Mr. Chairman.
  I would urge my colleagues that this is not a moot point. It is very 
much alive. This amendment is necessary.
  I urge a yes vote on the amendment which will prohibit the use of 
funds for pro-drug legalization ballot initiatives in any way, shape or 
form.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Armey

  Mr. ARMEY. 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. 
     Armey:
       Page 58, after line 10, insert the following:

    TITLE II--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STUDENT OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIPS

     SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this title--
       (1) the term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors of the 
     Corporation established under section 202(b)(1);
       (2) the term ``Corporation'' means the District of Columbia 
     Scholarship Corporation established under section 202(a);
       (3) the term ``eligible institution''--
       (A) in the case of an eligible institution serving a 
     student who receives a tuition scholarship under section 
     203(c)(1), means a public, private, or independent elementary 
     or secondary school; and
       (B) in the case of an eligible institution serving a 
     student who receives an enhanced achievement scholarship 
     under section 203(c)(2), means an elementary or secondary 
     school, or an entity that provides services to a student 
     enrolled in an elementary or secondary school to enhance such 
     student's achievement through instruction described in 
     section 203(c)(2);
       (4) the term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian or other 
     person standing in loco parentis; and
       (5) the term ``poverty line'' means the income official 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.

     SEC. 202. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOLARSHIP CORPORATION.

       (a) General Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be established a 
     private, nonprofit corporation, to be known as the ``District 
     of Columbia Scholarship Corporation'', which is neither an 
     agency nor establishment of the United States Government or 
     the District of Columbia Government.
       (2) Duties.--The Corporation shall have the responsibility 
     and authority to administer, publicize, and evaluate the 
     scholarship program in accordance with this title, and to 
     determine student and school eligibility for participation in 
     such program.
       (3) Consultation.--The Corporation shall exercise its 
     authority--
       (A) in a manner consistent with maximizing educational 
     opportunities for the maximum number of interested families; 
     and
       (B) in consultation with the District of Columbia Board of 
     Education or entity exercising administrative jurisdiction 
     over the District of Columbia Public Schools, the 
     Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools, 
     and other school scholarship programs in the District of 
     Columbia.
       (4) Application of provisions.--The Corporation shall be 
     subject to the provisions of this title, and, to the extent 
     consistent with this title, to the District of Columbia 
     Nonprofit Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-501 et seq.).
       (5) Residence.--The Corporation shall have its place of 
     business in the District of Columbia and shall be considered, 
     for purposes of venue in civil actions, to be a resident of 
     the District of Columbia.
       (6) Fund.--There is established in the Treasury a fund that 
     shall be known as the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund, 
     to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (7) Disbursement.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall make 
     available and disburse to the Corporation, before October 15 
     of each fiscal year or not later than 15 days after the date 
     of enactment of an Act making appropriations for the District 
     of Columbia for such year, whichever occurs later, such funds 
     as have been appropriated to the District of Columbia 
     Scholarship Fund for the fiscal year in which such 
     disbursement is made.
       (8) Availability.--Funds authorized to be appropriated 
     under this title shall remain available until expended.
       (9) Uses.--Funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
     title shall be used by the Corporation in a prudent and 
     financially responsible manner, solely for scholarships, 
     contracts, and administrative costs.
       (10) Authorization.--
       (A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund--
       (i) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       (ii) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and
       (iii) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 
     2003.
       (B) Limitation.--Not more than 7.5 percent of the amount 
     appropriated to carry out this title for any fiscal year may 
     be used by the Corporation for salaries and administrative 
     costs.
       (b) Organization and Management; Board of Directors.--
       (1) Board of directors; membership.--
       (A) In general.--The Corporation shall have a Board of 
     Directors (referred to in this title as the ``Board''), 
     comprised of 7 members with 6 members of the Board appointed 
     by the President not later than 30 days after receipt of 
     nominations from the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and the Majority Leader of the Senate.
       (B) House nominations.--The President shall appoint 3 of 
     the members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with 
     the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
       (C) Senate nominations.--The President shall appoint 3 
     members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the 
     Majority Leader of the Senate in consultation with the 
     Minority Leader of the Senate.
       (D) Deadline.--The Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and Majority Leader of the Senate shall submit their 
     nominations to the President not later than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (E) Appointee of mayor.--The Mayor shall appoint 1 member 
     of the Board not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (F) Possible interim members.--If the President does not 
     appoint the 6 members of the Board in the 30-day period 
     described in subparagraph (A), then the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate 
     shall each appoint 2 members of the Board, and the Minority 
     Leader of the House of Representatives and the Minority 
     Leader of the Senate shall each appoint 1 member of the 
     Board, from among the individuals nominated pursuant to 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), as the case may be. The appointees 
     under the preceding sentence together with the appointee of 
     the Mayor, shall serve as an interim Board with all the 
     powers and other duties of the Board described in this title, 
     until the President makes the appointments as described in 
     this subsection.
       (2) Powers.--All powers of the Corporation shall vest in 
     and be exercised under the authority of the Board.
       (3) Elections.--Members of the Board annually shall elect 1 
     of the members of the Board to be the Chairperson of the 
     Board.
       (4) Residency.--All members appointed to the Board shall be 
     residents of the District of Columbia at the time of 
     appointment and while serving on the Board.
       (5) Nonemployee.--No member of the Board may be an employee 
     of the United States Government or the District of Columbia 
     Government when appointed to or during

[[Page H7390]]

     tenure on the Board, unless the individual is on a leave of 
     absence from such a position while serving on the Board.
       (6) Incorporation.--The members of the initial Board shall 
     serve as incorporators and shall take whatever steps are 
     necessary to establish the Corporation under the District of 
     Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-501 et 
     seq.).
       (7) General term.--The term of office of each member of the 
     Board shall be 5 years, except that any member appointed to 
     fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term 
     for which the predecessor was appointed shall be appointed 
     for the remainder of such term.
       (8) Consecutive term.--No member of the Board shall be 
     eligible to serve in excess of 2 consecutive terms of 5 years 
     each. A partial term shall be considered as 1 full term. Any 
     vacancy on the Board shall not affect the Board's power, but 
     shall be filled in a manner consistent with this title.
       (9) No benefit.--No part of the income or assets of the 
     Corporation shall inure to the benefit of any Director, 
     officer, or employee of the Corporation, except as salary or 
     reasonable compensation for services.
       (10) Political activity.--The Corporation may not 
     contribute to or otherwise support any political party or 
     candidate for elective public office.
       (11) No officers or employees.--The members of the Board 
     shall not, by reason of such membership, be considered to be 
     officers or employees of the United States Government or of 
     the District of Columbia Government.
       (12) Stipends.--The members of the Board, while attending 
     meetings of the Board or while engaged in duties related to 
     such meetings or other activities of the Board pursuant to 
     this title, shall be provided a stipend. Such stipend shall 
     be at the rate of $150 per day for which the member of the 
     Board is officially recorded as having worked, except that no 
     member may be paid a total stipend amount in any calendar 
     year in excess of $5,000.
       (c) Officers and Staff.--
       (1) Executive director.--The Corporation shall have an 
     Executive Director, and such other staff, as may be appointed 
     by the Board for terms and at rates of compensation, not to 
     exceed level EG-16 of the Educational Service of the District 
     of Columbia, to be fixed by the Board.
       (2) Staff.--With the approval of the Board, the Executive 
     Director may appoint and fix the salary of such additional 
     personnel as the Executive Director considers appropriate.
       (3) Annual rate.--No staff of the Corporation may be 
     compensated by the Corporation at an annual rate of pay 
     greater than the annual rate of pay of the Executive 
     Director.
       (4) Service.--All officers and employees of the Corporation 
     shall serve at the pleasure of the Board.
       (5) Qualification.--No political test or qualification may 
     be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other 
     personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, or 
     employees of the Corporation.
       (d) Powers of the Corporation.--
       (1) Generally.--The Corporation is authorized to obtain 
     grants from, and make contracts with, individuals and with 
     private, State, and Federal agencies, organizations, and 
     institutions.
       (2) Hiring authority.--The Corporation may hire, or accept 
     the voluntary services of, consultants, experts, advisory 
     boards, and panels to aid the Corporation in carrying out 
     this title.
       (e) Financial Management and Records.--
       (1) Audits.--The financial statements of the Corporation 
     shall be--
       (A) maintained in accordance with generally accepted 
     accounting principles for nonprofit corporations; and
       (B) audited annually by independent certified public 
     accountants.
       (2) Report.--The report for each such audit shall be 
     included in the annual report to Congress required by section 
     210(c).
       (f) Administrative Responsibilities.--
       (1) Scholarship application schedule and procedures.--Not 
     later than 30 days after the initial Board is appointed and 
     the first Executive Director of the Corporation is hired 
     under this title, the Corporation shall implement a schedule 
     and procedures for processing applications for, and awarding, 
     student scholarships under this title. The schedule and 
     procedures shall include establishing a list of certified 
     eligible institutions, distributing scholarship information 
     to parents and the general public (including through a 
     newspaper of general circulation), and establishing deadlines 
     for steps in the scholarship application and award process.
       (2) Institutional applications and eligibility.--
       (A) In general.--An eligible institution that desires to 
     participate in the scholarship program under this title shall 
     file an application with the Corporation for certification 
     for participation in the scholarship program under this title 
     shall--
       (i) demonstrate that the eligible institution has operated 
     with not less than 25 students during the 3 years preceding 
     the year for which the determination is made unless the 
     eligible institution is applying for certification as a new 
     eligible institution under subparagraph (C);
       (ii) contain an assurance that the eligible institution 
     will comply with all applicable requirements of this title;
       (iii) contain an annual statement of the eligible 
     institution's budget; and
       (iv) describe the eligible institution's proposed program, 
     including personnel qualifications and fees.
       (B) Certification.--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     not later than 60 days after receipt of an application in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A), the Corporation shall 
     certify an eligible institution to participate in the 
     scholarship program under this title.
       (ii) Continuation.--An eligible institution's certification 
     to participate in the scholarship program shall continue 
     unless such eligible institution's certification is revoked 
     in accordance with subparagraph (D).
       (C) New eligible institution.--
       (i) In general.--An eligible institution that did not 
     operate with at least 25 students in the 3 years preceding 
     the year for which the determination is made may apply for a 
     1-year provisional certification to participate in the 
     scholarship program under this title for a single year by 
     providing to the Corporation not later than July 1 of the 
     year preceding the year for which the determination is made--

       (I) a list of the eligible institution's board of 
     directors;
       (II) letters of support from not less than 10 members of 
     the community served by such eligible institution;
       (III) a business plan;
       (IV) an intended course of study;
       (V) assurances that the eligible institution will begin 
     operations with not less than 25 students;
       (VI) assurances that the eligible institution will comply 
     with all applicable requirements of this title; and
       (VII) a statement that satisfies the requirements of 
     clauses (ii) and (iv) of subparagraph (A).

       (ii) Certification.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of receipt of an application described in clause (i), the 
     Corporation shall certify in writing the eligible 
     institution's provisional certification to participate in the 
     scholarship program under this title unless the Corporation 
     determines that good cause exists to deny certification.
       (iii) Renewal of provisional certification.--After receipt 
     of an application under clause (i) from an eligible 
     institution that includes a statement of the eligible 
     institution's budget completed not earlier than 12 months 
     before the date such application is filed, the Corporation 
     shall renew an eligible institution's provisional 
     certification for the second and third years of the school's 
     participation in the scholarship program under this title 
     unless the Corporation finds--

       (I) good cause to deny the renewal, including a finding of 
     a pattern of violation of requirements described in paragraph 
     (3)(A); or
       (II) consistent failure of 25 percent or more of the 
     students receiving scholarships under this title and 
     attending such school to make appropriate progress (as 
     determined by the Corporation) in academic achievement.

       (iv) Denial of certification.--If provisional certification 
     or renewal of provisional certification under this subsection 
     is denied, then the Corporation shall provide a written 
     explanation to the eligible institution of the reasons for 
     such denial.
       (D) Revocation of eligibility.--
       (i) In general.--The Corporation, after notice and hearing, 
     may revoke an eligible institution's certification to 
     participate in the scholarship program under this title for a 
     year succeeding the year for which the determination is made 
     for--

       (I) good cause, including a finding of a pattern of 
     violation of program requirements described in paragraph 
     (3)(A); or
       (II) consistent failure of 25 percent or more of the 
     students receiving scholarships under this title and 
     attending such school to make appropriate progress (as 
     determined by the Corporation) in academic achievement.

       (ii) Explanation.--If the certification of an eligible 
     institution is revoked, the Corporation shall provide a 
     written explanation of the Corporation's decision to such 
     eligible institution and require a pro rata refund of the 
     proceeds of the scholarship funds received under this title.
       (3) Participation requirements for eligible institutions.--
       (A) Requirements.--Each eligible institution participating 
     in the scholarship program under this title shall--
       (i) provide to the Corporation not later than June 30 of 
     each year the most recent annual statement of the eligible 
     institution's budget; and
       (ii) charge a student that receives a scholarship under 
     this title not more than the cost of tuition and mandatory 
     fees for, and transportation to attend, such eligible 
     institution as other students who are residents of the 
     District of Columbia and enrolled in such eligible 
     institution.
       (B) Compliance.--The Corporation may require documentation 
     of compliance with the requirements of subparagraph (A), but 
     neither the Corporation nor any governmental entity may 
     impose requirements upon an eligible institution as a 
     condition for participation in the scholarship program under 
     this title, other than requirements established under this 
     title.

     SEC. 203. SCHOLARSHIPS AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Eligible Students.--The Corporation is authorized to 
     award tuition scholarships under subsection (c)(1) and 
     enhanced achievement scholarships under subsection (c)(2) to 
     students in kindergarten through grade 12--
       (1) who are residents of the District of Columbia; and

[[Page H7391]]

       (2) whose family income does not exceed 185 percent of the 
     poverty line.
       (b) Scholarship Priority.--
       (1) First.--The Corporation first shall award scholarships 
     to students described in subsection (a) who--
       (A) are enrolled in a District of Columbia public school or 
     preparing to enter a District of Columbia public 
     kindergarten, except that this subparagraph shall apply only 
     for academic years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001; or
       (B) have received a scholarship from the Corporation for 
     the academic year preceding the academic year for which the 
     scholarship is awarded.
       (2) Second.--If funds remain for a fiscal year for awarding 
     scholarships after awarding scholarships under paragraph (1), 
     the Corporation shall award scholarships to students who are 
     described in subsection (a), not described in paragraph (1), 
     and otherwise eligible for a scholarship under this title.
       (3) Lottery selection.--The Corporation shall award 
     scholarships to students under this subsection using a 
     lottery selection process whenever the amount made available 
     to carry out this title for a fiscal year is insufficient to 
     award a scholarship to each student who is eligible to 
     receive a scholarship under this title for the fiscal year.
       (c) Use of Scholarship.--
       (1) Tuition scholarships.--A tuition scholarship may be 
     used for the payment of the cost of the tuition and mandatory 
     fees for, and transportation to attend, an eligible 
     institution located within the geographic boundaries of the 
     District of Columbia; Montgomery County, Maryland; Prince 
     Georges County, Maryland; Arlington County, Virginia; 
     Alexandria City, Virginia; Falls Church City, Virginia; 
     Fairfax City, Virginia; or Fairfax County, Virginia.
       (2) Enhanced achievement scholarship.--An enhanced 
     achievement scholarship may be used only for the payment of 
     the costs of tuition and mandatory fees for, and 
     transportation to attend, a program of instruction provided 
     by an eligible institution which enhances student achievement 
     of the core curriculum and is operated outside of regular 
     school hours to supplement the regular school program.
       (e) Not School Aid.--A scholarship under this title shall 
     be considered assistance to the student and shall not be 
     considered assistance to an eligible institution.

     SEC. 204. SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS.

       (a) Awards.--From the funds made available under this 
     title, the Corporation shall award a scholarship to a student 
     and make scholarship payments in accordance with section 205.
       (b) Notification.--Each eligible institution that receives 
     the proceeds of a scholarship payment under subsection (a) 
     shall notify the Corporation not later than 10 days after--
       (1) the date that a student receiving a scholarship under 
     this title is enrolled, of the name, address, and grade level 
     of such student;
       (2) the date of the withdrawal or expulsion of any student 
     receiving a scholarship under this title, of the withdrawal 
     or expulsion; and
       (3) the date that a student receiving a scholarship under 
     this title is refused admission, of the reasons for such a 
     refusal.
       (c) Tuition Scholarship.--
       (1) Equal to or below poverty line.--For a student whose 
     family income is equal to or below the poverty line, a 
     tuition scholarship may not exceed the lesser of--
       (A) the cost of tuition and mandatory fees for, and 
     transportation to attend, an eligible institution; or
       (B) $3,200 for fiscal year 1999, with such amount adjusted 
     in proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all 
     urban consumers published by the Department of Labor for each 
     of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
       (2) Above poverty line.--For a student whose family income 
     is greater than the poverty line, but not more than 185 
     percent of the poverty line, a tuition scholarship may not 
     exceed the lesser of--
       (A) 75 percent of the cost of tuition and mandatory fees 
     for, and transportation to attend, an eligible institution; 
     or
       (B) $2,400 for fiscal year 1999, with such amount adjusted 
     in proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all 
     urban consumers published by the Department of Labor for each 
     of fiscal years 2000 through 2003.
       (d) Enhanced Achievement Scholarship.--An enhanced 
     achievement scholarship may not exceed the lesser of--
       (1) the costs of tuition and mandatory fees for, and 
     transportation to attend, a program of instruction at an 
     eligible institution; or
       (2) $500 for 1999, with such amount adjusted in proportion 
     to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban 
     consumers published by the Department of Labor for each of 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2003.

     SEC. 205. SCHOLARSHIP PAYMENTS.

       (a) Payments.--The Corporation shall make scholarship 
     payments to the parent of a student awarded a scholarship 
     under this title.
       (b) Distribution of Scholarship Funds.--Scholarship funds 
     may be distributed by check, or another form of disbursement, 
     issued by the Corporation and made payable directly to a 
     parent of a student awarded a scholarship under this title. 
     The parent may use the scholarship funds only for payment of 
     tuition, mandatory fees, and transportation costs as 
     described in this title.
       (c) Pro Rata Amounts for Student Withdrawal.--If a student 
     receiving a scholarship under this title withdraws or is 
     expelled from an eligible institution after the proceeds of a 
     scholarship is paid to the eligible institution, then the 
     eligible institution shall refund to the Corporation on a pro 
     rata basis the proportion of any such proceeds received for 
     the remaining days of the school year. Such refund shall 
     occur not later than 30 days after the date of the withdrawal 
     or expulsion of the student.

     SEC. 206. CIVIL RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--An eligible institution participating in 
     the scholarship program under this title shall not 
     discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or 
     sex in carrying out the provisions of this title.
       (b) Applicability and Construction with Respect to 
     Discrimination on the Basis of Sex.--
       (1) Applicability.--With respect to discrimination on the 
     basis of sex, subsection (a) shall not apply to an eligible 
     institution that is controlled by a religious organization if 
     the application of subsection (a) is inconsistent with the 
     religious tenets of the eligible institution.
       (2) Construction.--With respect to discrimination on the 
     basis of sex, nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to 
     require any person, or public or private entity to provide or 
     pay, or to prohibit any such person or entity from providing 
     or paying, for any benefit or service, including the use of 
     facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing in the preceding 
     sentence shall be construed to permit a penalty to be imposed 
     on any person or individual because such person or individual 
     is seeking or has received any benefit or service related to 
     a legal abortion.
       (3) Single-sex schools, classes, or activities.--With 
     respect to discrimination on the basis of sex, nothing in 
     subsection (a) shall be construed to prevent a parent from 
     choosing, or an eligible institution from offering, a single-
     sex school, class, or activity.
       (c) Revocation.--Notwithstanding section 202(f)(2)(D), if 
     the Corporation determines that an eligible institution 
     participating in the scholarship program under this title is 
     in violation of subsection (a), then the Corporation shall 
     revoke such eligible institution's certification to 
     participate in the program.

     SEC. 207. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.

       Nothing in this title shall affect the rights of students, 
     or the obligations of the District of Columbia public 
     schools, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).

     SEC. 208. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     to prevent any eligible institution which is operated by, 
     supervised by, controlled by, or connected to, a religious 
     organization from employing, admitting, or giving preference 
     to, persons of the same religion to the extent determined by 
     such institution to promote the religious purpose for which 
     the eligible institution is established or maintained.
       (b) Sectarian Purposes.--Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to prohibit the use of funds made available under 
     this title for sectarian educational purposes, or to require 
     an eligible institution to remove religious art, icons, 
     scripture, or other symbols.

      SEC. 209. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--An eligible institution participating in 
     the scholarship program under this title shall report to the 
     Corporation not later than July 30 of each year in a manner 
     prescribed by the Corporation, the following data:
       (1) Student achievement in the eligible institution's 
     programs.
       (2) Grade advancement for scholarship students.
       (3) Disciplinary actions taken with respect to scholarship 
     students.
       (4) Graduation, college admission test scores, and college 
     admission rates, if applicable for scholarship students.
       (5) Types and amounts of parental involvement required for 
     all families of scholarship students.
       (6) Student attendance for scholarship and nonscholarship 
     students.
       (7) General information on curriculum, programs, 
     facilities, credentials of personnel, and disciplinary rules 
     at the eligible institution.
       (8) Number of scholarship students enrolled.
       (9) Such other information as may be required by the 
     Corporation for program appraisal.
       (b) Confidentiality.--No personal identifiers may be used 
     in such report, except that the Corporation may request such 
     personal identifiers solely for the purpose of verification.

      SEC. 210. PROGRAM APPRAISAL.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall enter 
     into a contract, with an evaluating agency that has 
     demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, for an 
     independent evaluation of the scholarship program under this 
     title, including--
       (1) a comparison of test scores between scholarship 
     students and District of Columbia public school students of 
     similar

[[Page H7392]]

     backgrounds, taking into account the students' academic 
     achievement at the time of the award of their scholarships 
     and the students' family income level;
       (2) a comparison of graduation rates between scholarship 
     students and District of Columbia public school students of 
     similar backgrounds, taking into account the students' 
     academic achievement at the time of the award of their 
     scholarships and the students' family income level;
       (3) the satisfaction of parents of scholarship students 
     with the scholarship program; and
       (4) the impact of the scholarship program on the District 
     of Columbia public schools, including changes in the public 
     school enrollment, and any improvement in the academic 
     performance of the public schools.
       (b) Public Review of Data.--All data gathered in the course 
     of the study described in subsection (a) shall be made 
     available to the public upon request except that no personal 
     identifiers shall be made public.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than September 1 of each 
     year, the Corporation shall submit a progress report on the 
     scholarship program to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress. Such report shall include a review of how 
     scholarship funds were expended, including the initial 
     academic achievement levels of students who have participated 
     in the scholarship program.
       (d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for the study described in subsection (a), $250,000, which 
     shall remain available until expended.

     SEC. 211. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Jurisdiction.--
       (1) In General.--The United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction in any action 
     challenging the constitutionality of the scholarship program 
     under this title and shall provide expedited review.
       (2) Standing.--The parent of any student eligible to 
     receive a scholarship under this title shall have standing in 
     an action challenging the constitutionality of the 
     scholarship program under this title.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and a Member opposed will each control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the hour is late, we are all very familiar with this 
issue. The issue is very simple. In addition to the already increase of 
$81 million for the D.C. public schools that you find in this bill, 
where the committee in their generosity increased public school funding 
by 14 percent over last year, I am asking again, as I have done before, 
that we take additional monies for the purpose of providing 
scholarships to the children and the families of children in the D.C. 
area that are low income families, so that those families might have 
the right and the privilege of seeking a better school opportunity for 
their children and moving their children to another school.
  We are all familiar with the demand for this and the over 7,000 
families that have already requested this formally. We are all familiar 
with the availability of space that we have in schools where the 
maximum grant of $3,200 would be ample for the child's tuition.
  This is not something new. We have had this debate before. But let me 
just highlight a few things that have happened since the last time we 
had this debate.

                              {time}  2300

  A Washington Post poll has been released recently that shows that 
District residents support a scholarship program by a 56 to 36 margin. 
That same poll shows that African Americans support it by a 2 to 1 
margin. Also in that poll, we discovered that 67 percent of parents of 
public school children support it.
  Another point we should keep in mind is that the Wisconsin Supreme 
Court case was settled since we last discussed that with respect to the 
Milwaukee school choice program. By a vote of 4 to nothing, they said 
that it does not violate the establishment clause of the first 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I might make this final observation. Many people are 
saying to me, why do we want to have this vote again after the 
President so recently vetoed this legislation? Let me just say, Mr. 
Chairman, if I may, I am committed to these children. I know them. I 
know their families. I know how important it is in their lives. I 
cannot in good conscience talk about that commitment without seizing 
every opportunity I have before me to make this scholarship opportunity 
available for them.
  I do not understand how any person watching this school system, which 
is already one of the most well-funded school systems in America, that 
received a 14 percent increase in its budget over last year to the tune 
of $81 million, can find it in their heart to say that an additional $7 
million expressly available to poor families so they might exercise the 
same option that is so cavalierly exercised by wealthy people in this 
town, to choose a school themselves for their children, how they can 
vote against that?
  I know we have those in this body that will be so devoid of heart and 
understanding and compassion that they will vote no, but Members will 
not find me nor the majority of people voting here tonight that are 
willing to turn their back on these children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. Chairman, I have 
supported this amendment in the past because I think that we do need to 
provide alternatives for those children who are living in untenable 
situations, and their parents do need alternatives from what are 
currently provided to them in order to receive an adequate public 
education. But I do not support including this amendment in the 
District of Columbia Appropriations Act.
  The President has said, if this amendment is included in this bill, I 
will veto this bill. So why would we force this bill into a veto 
situation when it includes $85 million for the District of Columbia 
public schools and $20 million for charter schools, which is a new 
initiative, which is education reform, which is terribly important, 
which we will lose if this is attached to the bill?
  Today is the 6th of August. Tomorrow we are going to recess for an 
entire month. When we return we will have 4 weeks to conference this 
bill, to vote on the conference report and send the bill to the 
President. I would hope we do not send a bill that will be vetoed. I do 
not understand why this needs to be included. We had a separate piece 
of legislation that dealt with this issue. I think that is the 
appropriate way to do it, not to put it on an appropriations bill.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I have to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia, but Mr. 
Chairman, we should not give up on the President of the United States. 
We should not forsake the hope that he could, in fact, have a change of 
heart and find a heart for these children. I, for one, will not give up 
that hope. I believe he is capable of caring.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Riggs).
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to thank the majority leader 
for his outstanding efforts on behalf of the District of Columbia 
children and families.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to make sure that Members understand what 
we are talking about here. The Armey proposal would grant tuition 
scholarships to 2,000 children and tutoring assistance to an equal 
number of kids, kids that all too often are trapped in poor performing 
schools in the District of Columbia, and to quote the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) from the debate a few weeks ago, are thereby 
consigned to a very bleak adult future.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there is always pressure, particularly late in 
the session of Congress, to jettison proposals in the name of political 
expedience, but there is never a wrong time to do the right thing. We 
cannot, in good conscience, leave these kids behind.
  We are talking about a school district with the lowest test scores 
and highest dropout rates of any large urban school district in the 
country, despite spending somewhere in the neighborhood of $9,000 per 
kid. How do we rationalize opposing this very modest proposal?
  We have to give choice a chance in the District of Columbia. We know 
that D.C. parents want choice: 7,573 children applied for 1,000 private 
scholarships that recently became available in the District of 
Columbia. We know that competition will help improve, not dismantle, 
the public school district.
  The bottom line again is, as the majority leader said, D.C. children 
deserve a chance. In fact, every child in America and every child in 
Anacostia or the

[[Page H7393]]

Southeast portion of the District of Columbia deserves a safe, sound 
education and a fair chance at the American dream. That is what the 
Armey opportunity scholarships will give needy children, children who 
should have a promise of a very bright future.
  If we listen to the voices of choice, they are the parents who are 
demanding this. Virginia Walden, who has been mentioned before, said it 
best: Give parents like Virginia Walden the choice so their kids have a 
chance.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. We should be creating academic opportunities for all 
students, and not just a handful. We do that by improving our public 
schools, not by undermining them.
  Mr. Chairman, my mother worked in a sweatshop earning 2 cents for 
each collar that she stitched. She never dreamed that one day her 
daughter would serve in the House of Representatives. That was possible 
because education is the great equalizer in this Nation.
  No one would deny that our public school system needs help, but I 
challenge my Republican colleagues, do they truly want to improve 
educational opportunities for children in the District? If the answer 
is yes, then reduce class sizes so teachers can give the attention and 
discipline to kids that they need; put computers in the classrooms, so 
students can learn the skills of the 21st century; and enact high 
standards, and hold students and schools accountable.
  Do not take funds from public schools and give them to private 
schools. Do not provide vouchers to just 2,000 D.C. students, and 
abandon 76,000 students who remain in our public schools. Vouchers will 
not solve the problems in our public schools, they will create new 
ones. Let us defeat this amendment and help our public schools.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me concede from the outset that we are all just poor folks come 
to greatness, so we do not need any more testimonials about our hard 
times.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the 
majority leader, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). I think everyone in this Chamber 
would agree, we all support the notion of improving education, but I 
think where we draw the line is when we have those who defend the 
status quo, a status quo that has failed generations of children, and 
then there are those who want to provide opportunities for young 
people, for families who do not have a choice, 2,000 of more than 7,500 
children.
  Common sense would dictate that anyone with a good conscience would 
provide an opportunity to such a youngster, to such a family who is 
yearning for a choice and a quality education. Yet, there are those who 
would stand in the way of such a choice and such an opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, very rarely do we get an opportunity to touch a child's 
life and to provide a sense of hope and a sense of commitment from the 
United States Congress, such that they can go on and live a productive 
life. This amendment would go a long way to assure such a thing.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we have been down 
this road before, and here we go again. I rise in opposition to the 
experiment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) to privatize public 
education, put vouchers into the hands of 2,000, when vouchers need to 
be in the hands of 80,000.
  I really appreciate the concern for 2,000 of the students, but I 
would sure appreciate much more concern for 80,000 by reducing class 
size, having special programs, special tutoring, seriously paying 
teachers. That is how we improve education, not for 2,000, but for 
200,000. Let us vote down this amendment and make America work for all 
of the students, and not just some.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority leader for yielding me 
the time. I commend the majority leader for his solid work over many 
years on this really important subject.
  A recent poll conducted by the Washington Post found that District 
residents support low-income scholarships by a 56-to-36 margin. African 
Americans support low-income scholarships by an even greater 
percentage, 2-to-1 margin, the poll found.
  Recent polls across the country show that while people really believe 
that teachers are very much a part of this solution, those same polls 
show that some of the heavy-handed approaches of the teachers unions 
are very much a part of the problem.
  I think rather than just pandering to these heavy-handed unions, we 
need to look at the consumers and realize this legislation provides 
opportunity scholarships for grades K through 12, for children whose 
family income is below 185 percent of poverty. Students can receive 
scholarships of up to $3200. We need to focus on these students and 
those parents that want these opportunities.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment for three reasons:
  First of all, for fairness. When we have tackled tough issues around 
here like IRS reform, reforming the Internal Revenue Service, we did 
not say we are going to fix it for 3 percent of the people. We did not 
say we are going to fix it for low-income or high-income people. We 
said we were going to fix it for everybody. Yet with this proposal, we 
fix it for 3,000 out of 78,000 students. That is not fair. That does 
not meet the fairness test.
  Secondly, consistency. Let us be consistent in this body. When we 
look at vouchers in D.C., it seems like there is a standard that, yes, 
we will experiment a little bit on D.C., but when we tried private 
schools scholarships on the ESEA Act, that failed. When we said we want 
to try it in Wisconsin and California and Texas, Alabama, that did not 
pass this body. But when we try to say, let us try it in somebody 
else's backyard, in D.C., then Members are a little bit more, let us 
try it on them.
  Let us not do that. Let us be consistent and let us not apply 
different standards to different parts of the country.
  Thirdly, yes, let us look at total reform. Let us reach across the 
aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and let us try alternative route 
certification. Let us bring teachers in like Colin Powell, let us bring 
Jimmy Carter, who can teach in a college but cannot teach in a high 
school. Alternative route certification would allow that. Let us pay 
our Head Start teachers a decent wage so that zoo keepers and parking 
attendants are not making more than them.
  Let us make sure that we have charter schools and public choice. 
Those things will reform schools for everybody, not just 3,000 out of 
78,000 students.
  Defeat the Armey amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis), chairman of the authorizing committee for D.C.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just address a few issues 
raised by my friends from the other side. First of all, this bill is 
already fully loaded. This has given a new meaning to that term, it 
will pass here and it will be whittled down in conference, but the 
President has already offered, I think, to veto 7 appropriation bills 
as they have come through this year. I do not think that means that we 
stop under the threat every time that he raises it.
  My friend has raised the issue of fairness because this only applies 
to 3,000 scholarship students who can use the money, I might add, not 
just to go to private school but for tutors, for computers, for other 
items they may not be able to receive through the District of Columbia 
public school system. But

[[Page H7394]]

what is fairness? No member of Congress, the President's kids, the Vice 
President's kids will attend the public schools in the District of 
Columbia. Fairness is giving to the poorest of the poor the same 
opportunities that our kids have. That is what fairness is. Not trying 
to equate 78,000 people and treat them all equally in a system right 
now that has the highest dropout rate in the country.
  Finally, I just add, the schools have not opened on time for the last 
four years. We are putting more money in the public school system. It 
is our hope that it will help.
  My friend also raised the issue of consistency in the ESEA Act. But 
consistency there is, what we said is, Federal dollars would not go in, 
but we encouraged State and local governments to be able to put dollars 
in for vouchers, if they felt it was effective.
  In our case, it is only 6 percent of Federal money is in the State 
and local school systems nationally. In this case, we are the State for 
the District of Columbia. We have a unique leadership role in one of 
the poorest school systems in the United States.
  This is a visionary plan. I am sorry it cannot have wider breadth. I 
am sure the majority leader would like to do that. But that only 
subjects it to more criticism from the other side of the aisle.
  What we would like to do is to give the same kind of opportunities to 
the poorest of the poor in this city, the President and the Vice 
President and Members of Congress.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. 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, there was an interesting article in a 
newspaper in my district this week, August 6, I would like to quote, 
because it does pose a question about conflict of interest and why one 
of our Members on the other side of the aisle is so invested in 
vouchers for private schools.
  I take just a piece of this article. I will read just a part it and 
put the rest into the Record.
  Frank Riggs, a one-time member of the Windsor school board who 
opposed vouchers as recently as four years ago, has recently said he 
will become a board member and spokesman for CEO America, which is a 
group that finances private voucher programs in 31 cities.
  It goes on and on. I am telling my colleagues, we have heard over and 
over from one Member of the other side of the aisle why vouchers are so 
very, very good for this country. I think it is because it is good, 
possibly, for somebody else.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) while I remind all of us that it is unseemly 
to question the motives of other Members of the Congress.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  We have a moral responsibility to put children first in education, 
including our inner city D.C. kids. According to a Washington Post 
article, the D.C. school system is, and I quote, ``a well-financed 
failure.'' Despite spending approximately $9,000 per student, about 40 
percent of the second and third graders tested in D.C. public schools 
last spring read too poorly to meet the proposed standard for promotion 
to the next grade. This would mean that about 5,000 of Washington's 
13,000 second and third graders might have to repeat their grade due to 
poor teaching, 5,000.
  Washington, D.C. kids are simply not being taught basic reading 
skills. I wonder how many of these students will slip through the 
cracks and graduate from high school without being able to read a 
newspaper. Many of their parents are helpless to take action to provide 
a good education. Let us give these D.C. parents a choice, the D.C. 
children a chance.
  Support the amendment.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. In addition to the other arguments already made against the 
amendment, this amendment exempts the private schools from Federal 
enforcement of civil rights laws, even though they are receiving 
federally funded vouchers.
  Through legislative trickery, the amendment declares these vouchers 
are assistance to the student and not assistance to the school and, 
therefore, the school will technically not be a recipient of Federal 
funds subject to Federal enforcement of civil rights laws. Although the 
amendment does contain general antidiscrimination language, it does not 
contain the very important substantive and procedural rights for 
parents.
  For example, the Department of Justice and Office of Civil Rights of 
the Department of Education will be prevented from withholding funds or 
seeking an injunction, even when there is proven cases of 
discrimination. Those remedies and the important legal support are not 
available because of the nonassistance to school provision. So 
discrimination can only be addressed on a case-by-case basis by the few 
parents willing and able to finance the litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents poor public policy because it 
diverts funds which could be put to better use and, furthermore, 
deceitfully suggests that children will be able to choose a private 
school of their choice, when the fact is that the choice will only be 
available for those who win the lottery, against 40 to 1 odds, and get 
admitted to a private school which has the tuition low enough for them 
to be able to afford the balance due after the voucher. And, finally, 
the amendment contains a provision which sabotages civil rights 
protections.
  Mr. Chairman, we should support public education and reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who I am sure would not be so rude as to 
impugn another Member's integrity.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Armey 
proposal to provide $5.4 million for scholarships for D.C. students. 
Obviously, we are not talking about helping 100,000, we are not talking 
about helping 200,000, we are talking about a pilot program to 
determine the viability of a voucher program in our city, the city that 
is the capital city.
  I just would say to my colleagues that it has taken me a long time to 
evolve from opposing vouchers to supporting them. About 8 years ago I 
questioned them, about 6 years ago I began to think they made sense, 
about 4 years ago I thought that we should do it but I did not have the 
political courage to confront the teachers' union, and it was only 3 
years ago I finally said we have simply got to do it.
  It is a pilot program. I strongly support it. I think it will make a 
big difference in the city.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time is left on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 6\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, yet another proposal 
tonight that violates the Republican principles of States' rights and 
local control.
  This school voucher scheme that has been dreamed up by the majority 
leader, that would provide only $3,200 a year for poor students to 
attend private and religious schools, is well below what the local 
private schools charge to begin with and, in addition to that, it would 
take nearly $7 million from the school District's budget and give it to 
only 3 percent of the District students.
  I think Members on this side of the aisle have made wonderful 
arguments about why this is not a sound proposal, but let me just ask 
my friends on the other side of the aisle who have talked about how 
much they care about these poor children, and how much they want them 
educated, and how much they want them to be a part of the American 
dream. Would my Republican colleagues please just let them have a 
summer job? As I understand it, they are taking away their right to 
work this summer, and they depend on that money so that they can have 
clothes to go back to school.

[[Page H7395]]

  I tell my colleagues, do not worry about the voucher, just give them 
a summer job and we will be very happy.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, today, unfortunately, the Republican 
leadership in the House has decided to take another step in giving up 
on public school education in America.
  Mr. Chairman, public school education is the key that has unlocked 
the door for generation after generation of Americans, the door to the 
American dream. It was for me, it has been and will be for my children.
  Besides, what will be next? Do we say to the person who does not like 
the books in the local public library that we will give them a voucher 
so they can buy books they like and create a private library in their 
own home? What about the person who does not like the folks who hang 
out in the public park? Will we give that person a voucher so they can 
buy their own swing set in their backyard and call it a private park? 
No. Because we are still a country that believes in the collective good 
and in the American dream.
  Let us fix our public schools: competition through charter public 
schools. Let us not give up on America's public schools. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, when my Republican colleagues talk 
repeatedly tonight about they are the party that cares about educating 
children, let me remind the American people these are the same people 
who, one, tried to abolish title I reading programs for children; two, 
tried to reduce school lunches; three, tried to reduce Head Start 
programs; four, proposed the largest education cuts in the history of 
America; five, tried to eliminate college work study programs; six, 
tried to cut college student loan programs; seven, they are trying to 
zero out this year's summer student job programs; and, finally, they 
even want to zero out LIHEAP programs that allow little children and 
children of all ages to get heating in the winter and air-conditioning 
in the summer.
  If my colleagues believe that is a good track record for helping 
little children get a good education, perhaps they should vote for the 
latest program of the Republican Party to educate America's children.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a former State secretary 
of education for that State.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I served as superintendent of schools for 8 years. I 
ran for this House for this very reason. My Republican colleagues ought 
to be ashamed of themselves. If they think it is such a good idea, they 
should make it for their hometown schools. They should make it for 
their hometown schools.
  The children of this country deserve better. My colleagues take on 
the teachers. They punish the schools. They talk about public 
education. It is the one thing that levels the playing field for all 
kids and gives them an opportunity. It gave me an opportunity and it 
gave them one, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for what they 
are trying to do.
  I know what it takes to improve education. It is a good curriculum, 
it is funding the system, it is providing for educational 
opportunities, and it is measuring what children do. It is not taking 
away the opportunity, and it is not providing for just a few. It is 
making sure that many have the opportunity. And my colleagues ought to 
vote against this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I can see the natives are being 
restless. We have very little time here left. Would the Chair clarify 
exactly how much time is left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me just advise the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) that I have only one speaker remaining, and I 
reserve the right to close.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, could I clarify that. I think 
that this side has the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has the right 
to close.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, if that be the unfortunate fact of our 
parliamentary order, the gentleman will advise me, then, when he is 
down to one remaining speaker, and then I will yield my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is prepared to 
give us his final flurry, what we can do is have one last speaker, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), after the 
gentleman yields, and that will be closure.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the time I have remaining to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, since the gentlewoman gets to close, I 
want to devote my entire speech to asking her to explain, since this 
bill endorses a substantial increase in public spending, as you know, 
since this bill spends over $8,000 per child in the public schools.
  We do not have an exact accurate figure because the school system 
that you represent is so badly run it cannot tell us how many children 
are in it. But the estimate that we have been able to find that is 
closest is $8,000 per child minimum, not counting the cost of 
retirement.
  Since what the gentleman from Texas is proposing is to increase, let 
me make this clear, because a number of people on the left cannot tell 
the truth anymore about public education because they cannot defend the 
teachers unions with honesty, the fact is this bill increases, 
increases spending on education in the District. So by voting ``no'' 
you are denying the children of this District money. Let us be clear 
about that.
  What you are proposing is to stop additional extra money. But there 
is something worse you are doing, and I do not for the life of me 
understand how you can do it.
  I graduated from a public school. I taught in a public high school. 
My wife graduated from public school. Both my daughters graduated. 
Unlike some of our liberal friends who send their children to private 
schools while trapping the poor. But that is not the point.
  The gentleman from North Carolina got up and said ``shame.'' Shame 
for what? You believe that government has the right to trap the poorest 
children in this country in a school, no matter how terrible it is. You 
believe that the schools that we could identify for you tomorrow 
morning, we will take you to them physically, we will have the parents 
who came and testified, the 8,000 children who applied for a private 
scholarship, you believe the Government has a right to trap those 8,000 
children no matter how bad, no matter how dangerous, no matter how 
destructive the school.
  By what right does the Government say to a child, we will cripple 
your future in the information age, you will not learn how to read, you 
will not really have a work ethic, you cannot do math?
  But yet, that is what you do on behalf of the unions. Let us be 
honest what this is about. This is about power. If you had cared about 
the children, you would add $6 million.
  Let me give you, if I might, one final example, because one of your 
Members besmirched the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs). They said 
he is for this because he is going to go off and help create a private 
scholarship. Let me just tell you, that is nonsense.
  Ted Forsman and John Walton have already created 15,000 to 20,000 
scholarships out of their own pocket. And, in fact, if you wanted to 
help, you would eliminate the need for him to go do it if you were 
willing to allow the children to have the scholarships. They are doing 
privately what you refuse to do publicly.
  And when they offered 1,000, and I will close with this because these 
are your constituents, when they offered 1,000 scholarships, 8,000 
people applied in a district that has 78,000. More than

[[Page H7396]]

one out of every ten people applied in the very first year because they 
were desperate to leave the schools you trapped them in.
  So you explain why are you turning down extra money to give the 
poorest children of your city a decent chance to have a better future.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, at this time our side is honored 
and pleased to yield the balance of the time to the very distinguished 
delegate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  By what right does the Speaker of the House come forward to 
personally impugn those who would disagree with him?
  By what right does the Speaker, who has led this House in refusing to 
fund hundreds of programs that are on the books, dare to say that those 
who would apply money to the public schools where this House has always 
said it should be applied, by what right does the Speaker impugn the 
integrity of those who would fund what has always been funded by this 
House?
  By what right does the Speaker accuse those of us who disagree with 
him of being in the pockets of the unions of this country?
  This Member, this Member, this Member got 90 percent of the vote in 
the District of Columbia and does not have to answer to the unions any 
more than she has to answer to you, Mr. Speaker.
  By what right, by what right, by what right does the majority leader 
bring to this floor a vouchers bill three months after the same bill 
was just vetoed, incurring a harmful delay for the very families and 
children he purports to want to help?
  If you ask D.C. residents whether they would like some free money to 
send their children to private schools today, like most Americans, they 
would probably say yes. It is important also to tell them that most 
court decisions say no and that the President's veto means no.
  There is something this House can do for D.C. kids. You can get on 
the train that is breaking through with tough, new standards and higher 
scores for our kids. You can get off the voucher train, which you know 
is headed straight for a veto.
  On behalf of the children of the District of Columbia, I thank you 
for the hypocrisy of the debate we have witnessed this very evening.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Republican District of 
Columbia School Vouchers Act. It was brought to the floor on false 
logic and ignores the real problems in public education.
  Let's take the Republican argument at face value for a minute. If 
public schools in the District of Columbia are unable to educate our 
children, as my colleagues claim, is the solution to remove 2,000 of 
them and place them in private schools? What do we do for the 76,000 
students left behind?
  In fact, these 76,000 will have to do with less funds available to 
help their education. It will cost $7 million to educate these 2,000 
students in private schools--but this bill does not allow for 
additional funds to help the remaining children. How else could this $7 
million be spent? The money could pay for after-school programs in each 
and every D.C. public school, 368 new boilers, could rewire 65 schools, 
upgrade plumbing in 102 schools, or buy 460,000 new textbooks.
  The people who live in the District of Columbia do not want this 
bill. The people of the District of Columbia did get the chance to vote 
on vouchers when the issue was placed on the ballot. It was defeated by 
a margin of eight to one.
  The residents of our host city do not deserve to be experiments for 
right-wing think tanks that promote ideas favored by the Christian 
Coalition and the religious right.
  If my colleagues on the other side are truly interested in helping 
students enrolled in public schools, I offer some suggestions for them. 
Why don't we increase the funds available for teacher salaries? How 
about holding teachers to educational standards of their own to make 
sure that those who teach our children are actually qualified to do so? 
What about providing a textbook in every core subject for every school 
child in America?
  What about adopting the President's plan to improve our educational 
infrastructure? We need to make sure that school classrooms are not 
falling apart and students have the resources they need, whether they 
be textbooks or access to the Internet, to be able to succeed in 
today's world.
  My Republican friends could make a strong stand for education by 
adopting these policies. Instead they shower us with rhetoric about 
helping children, when this is really an attack on public education 
across the country.
  The schoolchildren of the District of Columbia deserve our help and 
need our assistance. This is the wrong move, the wrong idea, and the 
wrong time and place. I urge my colleagues to take a real and 
meaningful stand for children and education.
  Vote against the Armey Amendment to the FY '99 District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the 
Armey Amendment. The primary point of concern, for myself, and many 
other members of this body in regads to H.R. 4380, is the ``school 
scholarship'' or vouchers amendment that the President has already 
vetoed in this Session of Congress.
  This provision would authorize the distribution of scholarships to 
low to moderate income families to attend public or private schools in 
nearby suburbs or to pay the costs of supplementary academic programs 
outside regular school hours for students attending public schools. 
However, only certain students will receive these tuition scholarships.
  This legislative initiative could obviously set a dangerous precedent 
from this body as to the course of public education in America for 
decades to come. If the United States Congress abandons public 
education, and sends that message to localities nationwide, a fatal 
blow could be struck to public schooling. The impetus behind this 
legislative agenda is clearly suspect. Instead of using these funds to 
improve the quality of public education, this policy initiative 
enriches local private institutions over education for all. 
Furthermore, if this policy initiative is so desirable, why are certain 
DC students left behind? Can this plan be a solution? I would assert 
that it cannot. Unless all of our children are helped, what value does 
this grand political experiment have?
  I see this initiative as a small step in trying to position the 
government behind private elementary and secondary schools. The 
ultimate question is why do those in this body who continue to support 
``public education'' with their lipservice, persist in trying to slowly 
erode the acknowledged sources of funding for our public schools? 
Public education, and its future, is an issue of the first magnitude, 
one that affects the constituency of every member of this House, and 
thus deserves full and open consideration. Public school education has 
over the years been the consistent equalizing factor in giving all 
Americans a fair chance at success.
  School vouchers, have not been requested by public mandate from the 
Congress, actually, they have failed every time they have been offered 
on a state ballot by 65% or greater. If a piece of legislation proposes 
to send our taxpayer dollars to private or religious schools, the 
highest levels of scrutiny are in order, and an amendment that may 
correct such a provision is unquestionably germane. Nine out of ten 
American children attend public schools, we must not abandon them, the 
reform of such schools is our hope.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Armey's DC 
voucher amendment because it will do absolutely nothing to improve the 
quality of the educational opportunities in the District of Columbia. 
What this amendment will do, however, is, for the second time this 
year, allow the Republicans to trumpet one of the baseless partisan 
political themes.
  Everyone here knows that federally funded school vouchers are not 
going to become law in the District of Columbia, or anywhere else for 
that matter.
  The President vetoed a DC voucher bill that was presented to him 
earlier this year. No doubt, he will veto DC vouchers again.
  I oppose vouchers because they would channel public tax dollars to 
private and religious schools. That's ridiculous to do when budgetary 
pressures make it hard enough to adequately fund our public schools.
  In addition, we should not undermine the position of the very local 
officials principally responsible for the education of District 
students. The Mayor, city council, school board, and control board have 
all said ``no'' to vouchers. Let's say ``no'' too.
  Defeat the Armey voucher amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 15-minute vote.
  It will be followed by the resumption of proceedings on the four 
amendments on which requests for recorded votes were postponed.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 208, not voting 13, as follows:

[[Page H7397]]

                             [Roll No. 411]

                               AYES--214

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     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)

                               NOES--208

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Conyers
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Manton
     McDade
     Moakley
     Packard
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Thompson
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2357

  Ms. McKINNEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          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 printed in House Report 105-679 offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt); the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran); amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 105-679 offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent); amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 105-679 offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) 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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250, 
noes 169, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 412]

                               AYES--250

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh

[[Page H7398]]


     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--169

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     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)
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Buyer
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Manton
     McDade
     Moakley
     Packard
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Thompson
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0006

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


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we are faced with an unusual parliamentary 
situation regarding the amendment that we just voted on regarding my 
amendment and the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). 
Is it not true that for my amendment to prevail and terminate the 
needle exchange program in the District of Columbia, that the Moran 
amendment must be defeated?
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) 
to strike section 150 and insert new language was not finally adopted 
because his request for a recorded vote on the amendment was postponed. 
Because an amendment rewriting section 150 in its entirety had not been 
adopted, the Chair recognized the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
to offer an amendment to strike the same section and insert slightly 
different language. The Moran amendment was not an amendment to the 
Tiahrt amendment. Such a second degree amendment would not have been 
permitted under the terms of the rule governing consideration of this 
bill. Rather, it is a separate amendment to section 150 of the bill.
  If both amendments are adopted, the second amendment adopted, the 
Moran amendment, would supersede the first amendment, and would be the 
only amendment reported by the Committee of the Whole to the House.


        Amendment, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) as 
modified, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 247, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 413]

                               AYES--173

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--247

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Markey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu

[[Page H7399]]


     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Conyers
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Manton
     McDade
     Moakley
     Packard
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Thompson
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0015

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, as modified, was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Largent

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) 
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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227, 
noes 192, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 414]

                               AYES--227

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bilbray
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Manton
     McDade
     Moakley
     Packard
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Thompson
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0022

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


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Bilbray

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) 
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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 283, 
noes 138, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 415]

                               AYES--283

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis

[[Page H7400]]


     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf

                               NOES--138

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hutchinson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Manton
     McDade
     Moakley
     Packard
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Thompson
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0030

  Mr. WAXMAN, and Ms. FURSE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1999''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 517, he reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
then put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 206, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 416]

                               YEAS--214

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

                               NAYS--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     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
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer

[[Page H7401]]


     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Hansen
     Manton
     McDade
     Moakley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Thompson
     Waters
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  0049

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________