[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.
____________________