[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 96 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8053-S8064]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, at this time I call up Calendar No.
170, S. 1283, the D.C. appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
A bill (S. 1283) making appropriations for the government
of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable
in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask my colleague from Georgia if he
would allow me to make a general statement about the bill for about 5
minutes, and then I will defer to Senator Durbin if he has a statement?
Mr. COVERDELL. Absolutely.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the Senate
floor the bill making appropriations for the government of the District
of Colombia for fiscal year 2000. This bill is largely the result of
the cooperation between Mayor Williams, the city council, and the
Financial Control Board. As a result of the hard work of locally
elected officials, the Congress and the Financial Control Board, we
begin to see signs of a healthier financial picture in the District.
At the end of fiscal year 1998, the District boasted an annual
surplus of $445 million. This surplus allowed the District to eliminate
the accumulated deficit.
Having paid that off, the District still realized a $112 million
positive fund balance. The District is projecting a $282 million fund
balance by the end of this year, which is 6 percent of the gross
budget. The District's healthy fund balance and improved economic
forecasts have helped the District achieve investment grade bond
ratings on Wall Street, which will save the District millions in
borrowing costs. One of the important provisions in the committee bill
creates a mechanism that will help improve this situation even more. I
am looking toward a higher bond rating for the city than the level at
which it now rests.
While the economic condition of the District is improving, service
delivery in our Nation's Capital still has a way to go. The public
school system is still in serious condition. Chief among these concerns
are recent reports of convicted felons walking away from district-run
halfway houses and committing violent crimes. The District government
will not be able to attract new families, middle-class families, to the
city unless its streets are safe, the schools are effective, and its
tax structure is competitive with surrounding jurisdictions.
Despite these problems, the budget moves the city in the correct
direction, and I think we are making great progress. The subcommittee
has adopted the District's consensus budget with a few modifications.
These are the few:
We have again required the District to hold a $150 million reserve
fund, and there are tight restrictions on the use of the reserve fund.
It can now serve as a true ``rainy day'' fund for the city. In
addition, we require the District to hold a 4-percent budget surplus.
The combination of the reserve and the required surplus will give the
District a solid financial cushion that is slightly above what other
major cities hold, but it is appropriate for the District in order to
improve its bond rating. Any funds above the 4-percent surplus are
directed to be used in this manner: No less than half for debt
reduction, no more than half for spending on nonrecurring expenses.
Currently, the District spends 13 percent of its budget servicing its
debt. The highest normal ratio for a city is 10 percent. The reforms
envisioned by this bill would bring this more in line with other
cities.
The city's debt was at one time so bad that it was not even rated by
the major agencies. The city's bond rating is now investment grade,
although it is the lowest rank of investment grade. I think this budget
will start the process by which that rating will be upgraded. This is
so important for the District to save millions in borrowing costs in
the future.
In addition, our budget has education reform. The committee has
provided $17 million for the D.C. College Tuition Assistance Program,
subject to authorization. I will wait and talk about that a little more
when Senator Durbin discusses it as well.
We have also addressed the issue of charter schools in the city. Many
believe that charter schools are an important force for improving
education in the city. Our bill adopts the D.C. City Council program to
ensure that pupils in both public schools and charter schools receive
the same amount of funding. This way, charter schools will remain an
education alternative for students in the District.
Everyone knows crime in the District is still too high. We have
provided $5.8 million for drug testing of people on probation. This has
worked in other cities and we hope it will bring down the crime rate in
the District of Columbia as well. We provided $1 million to the D.C.
police to combat open-air drug markets. This was a special concern
expressed by Senator Durbin, and I think a correct one. These are dens
of criminal activity that ruin a neighborhood and spread drugs to
children. This money we hope will be used to start wiping out those
open-air drug markets.
We have also permitted the District to use economic development funds
that we appropriated last year to be used for local tax relief for
commercial revitalization. Rebuilding or refurbishing a blighted
neighborhood is the most important thing we can do to bring it back
into the economic mainstream and keep it safe. The District has found
just recently, as the landlord of a number of abandoned properties,
that such properties are a magnet for crime and drug use. So these
funds can be used for revitalization and public/private partnerships.
The committee tried to address the concerns of the mayor and the
council. We certainly intend to improve the education system in the
District. We are not where we want to be to make the Capital City the
very best city in the whole United States, the beacon for what America
is, but we are heading in that direction. It is the goal of Congress to
make sure that our Capital City is one that all Americans feel they own
and they can be proud of.
I am pleased the Appropriations Committee reported this bill
unanimously and look forward to working through the conference with
Senator Durbin, my ranking member, who has been very cooperative and
helpful in getting a bill through that will address the needs the
District has and provide for those needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say this is a new assignment for me
as a ranking Democrat on the subcommittee on D.C. appropriations. I
served in a similar capacity in the House and it has become a subject
which I am more familiar with each time the appropriation process
begins. But it has been a special pleasure to work with the chairman of
this committee, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. This is the
first time we worked this closely together. It has been a very
professional relationship, and I think a very productive one for the
people of the District, as well as the Senate.
I salute, as well, Mary Beth Nethercutt and Jim Hyland of her staff,
for their cooperation. I thank, on my side, Terry Sauvain, who is not
[[Page S8054]]
only the minority clerk for this bill but who also serves as the
minority deputy staff director for the Appropriations Committee. I
appreciate very much Senator Byrd making him available to help me on
this my maiden voyage on the Senate Appropriations Committee.
My staff member, Marianne Upton, of the D.C. authorization
subcommittee of the Governmental Affairs Committee has worked
tirelessly as well, and I extend my gratitude to her, as well as Liz
Blevins and Suzanne Bailey of the committee staff.
May I say at the outset that I am heartened at the election of Mayor
Williams in the District of Columbia. I do believe it is a new day for
the District. The District has a better chance for a better future than
it has had in many years. Those of us who had lost faith in the future
of the District of Columbia have had it renewed by the earliest days of
his administration. He is a man who is honest. He is a man who is
dedicated. He truly wants the very best for the District of Columbia
and I am anxious to work with him.
People whom he has hired to this point in his administration include
some for whom I have a high regard. Police Chief Ramsey, who was a
member of the Chicago police force, was well respected there and I am
certain will do a good job here. Terry Gainer, who was the
Superintendent of the Illinois State Police, works as an assistant to
Chief Ramsey, and he, too, brings extraordinary expertise in the field
of law enforcement.
Mr. President, having said that, Senator Hutchison has explained this
unusual situation where the Congress of the United States, the Federal
Government, appropriates money to give to a city government, the D.C.
government. Of course, that is why we are here this evening. We have a
special interest in the District of Columbia, not just because the
Capitol is located here, but because we believe, as every American
does, that this is our city, too. Whatever our hometowns happen to be,
the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, is our capital city, and we
are very proud of it.
The millions of visitors who come each year really come to enjoy the
institutions, the landmarks, the monuments, and all of the things that
make this such a wonderful city and respected across the face of the
Earth. The building we work in, the U.S. Capitol, is one of the most
recognizable buildings in the world, and we are proud to work here, to
be part of it, and we understand that Washington, DC, is part of the
future of this country and part of our heritage.
Having said that, though, I have to be very candid. When my friends
in Illinois and others tell me they are going to visit the District of
Columbia, I tell them: Be careful. You have to be careful because,
sadly, the crime in the District of Columbia is the worst in the
Nation. The murder rate in the District of Columbia is more than twice
any other city in the United States and certainly more than any other
city in the world, from all the information I have been given. The
number of auto thefts is higher in the District of Columbia than
anywhere else in the United States of America. The schools, sad to say,
are some of the worst. They may be getting better, and we hope they
will, but, unfortunately, there are many problems.
When the mayor of the city came to testify before our committee, he
said the Annie E. Casey Foundation has done an evaluation of children
in the District of Columbia on how our kids are doing in Washington,
DC. Time after time, we find they are doing worse than virtually every
city in the United States or any State in the Union. As good as the
District of Columbia may be, as inspiring as the monuments may be,
there are endemic problems in this city which are horrible.
I am happy the revitalization plan has really given the District more
voice in its own future. I have tried throughout the years to overcome
the temptation to meddle in the politics of the District of Columbia
and to let them govern themselves as much as humanly possible.
I can tell you as a person who has spent a good part of his adult
life in the District, it has been tempting sometimes to speak up.
Tonight I will speak up on an action taken by the D.C. City Council
which I think is absolutely irresponsible. I will get to that a little
later. But this appropriations bill tries to strike that balance where
the Federal Government comes in with its contribution to the District
of Columbia and respects the right of this city to make its own
decisions, even if, in the judgment of some Senators here this evening,
we think those decisions are wrong.
I, once again, salute Senator Hutchison. I know during the course of
the debate on the amendments before us we will have a chance to get
into more specific issues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement,
at this time we will go to Senator Coverdell's amendment, and the time
will be divided, 20 minutes under the control of Senator Coverdell and
10 minutes under the control of Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Texas.
Amendment No. 1222
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the distribution
of sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection
of any illegal drug.)
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], for himself and
Mr. Ashcroft, proposes an amendment numbered 1222.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . None of the funds contained in this Act may be used
for any program of distributing sterile needles or syringes
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug, or for any
payment to any individual or entity who carries out any such
program.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the amendment, in a sense, is a
reflection of the comments just made by the Senator from Illinois about
some of the difficulties in the Nation's Capital, and the amendment is
drafted in the belief that a needle exchange program in the Nation's
Capital is not conducive to the safety of the citizens of the Nation's
Capital.
I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times op-ed dated Wednesday,
April 22, 1998, by James L. Curtis, a professor of psychiatry at
Columbia University Medical School and the director of psychiatry at
Harlem Hospital, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the op-ed was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, April 22, 1998]
Clean But Not Safe
(By James L. Curtis)
Donna Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
wanted it both ways this week. She announced that Federal
money would not be used for programs that distribute clean
needles to addicts. But she offered only a halfhearted
defense of that decision even stating that while the Clinton
Administration would not finance such programs, it supported
them in theory.
Ms. Shalala should have defended the Administration's
decision vigorously instead, she chose to placate AIDS
activists, who insist that giving free needles to addicts is
a cheap and easy was to prevent H.I.V. infection.
This is simplistic nonsense that stands common sense on its
head. For the past 10 years, as a black psychiatrist
specializing in addiction, I have warned about the dangers of
needle-exchange policies, which hurt not only individual
addicts but also poor and minority communities.
There is no evidence that such programs work. Take a look
at the way many of them are conducted in the United States.
An addict is enrolled anonymously, without being given an
H.I.V. test to determine whether he or she is already
infected. The addict is given a coded identification card
exempting him or her from arrest for carrying drug
paraphernalia. There is no strict accounting of how many
needles are given out or returned.
How can such an effort prove it is preventing the spread of
H.I.V. If the participants' are anonymous and if they aren't
tested for the virus before and after entering the program?
Studies in Montreal and Vancouver did systematically test
participants in needle-exchange programs. And the studies
found that those addicts who took part in such exchanges were
two to three times more likely to become infected with H.I.V.
than those who did not participate. They also found that
almost half the addicts frequently shared needles with others
anyway.
This was unwelcome news to the AIDS establishment. For
almost two years, the Montreal study was not reported in
scientific
[[Page S8055]]
journals. After the study finally appeared last year in a
medical journal, two of the researchers, Julie Bruneau and
Martin T. Schechter, said that their results had been
misinterpreted. The results, they said, needed to be seen in
the context of H.I.V. rates in other inner-city
neighborhoods. They even suggested that maybe the number of
needles given out in Vancouver should be raised to 10 million
form 2 million.
Needle-exchange programs are reckless experiments. Clearly
there is more than a minimal risk of contracting the virus.
And addicts already infected with H.I.V., or infected while
in the program, are not given antiretroviral medications,
which we know combats the virus in its earliest stages.
Nedle exchanges also affect poor communities adversely. For
instance, the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center is one of
New York City's largest needle-exchange programs. According
to tenant groups I have talked to, the center, since it began
in 1992, has become a magnet not only for addicts but for
dealers as well. Used needles, syringes and crack vials
litter the sidewalk. Tenants who live next door to the center
complain that the police don't arrest addicts who hang out
near it, even though they are openly buying drugs and
injecting them.
The indisputable fact is that needle exchanges merely help
addicts continue to use drugs. It's not unlike giving an
alcoholic a clean Scotch tumbler to prevent meningitis. Drug
addicts suffer from a serious disease requiring comprehensive
treatment, sometimes under compulsion. Ultimately, that's the
best way to reduce H.I.V. Infection among this group. What
addicts don't need is the lure of free needles.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am going to read several of the
statements made by Mr. Curtis in the op-ed. He says:
For the past 10 years, as a black psychiatrist specializing
in addiction, I have warned about the dangers of needle-
exchange policies, which hurt not only individual addicts but
also poor and minority communities.
There is no evidence that such programs work. . . .
Studies in Montreal and Vancouver . . . found that those
addicts who took part in such exchanges were two to three
times more likely to become infected with HIV than those who
did not participate. They also found that almost half the
addicts frequently shared needles with others anyway. . . .
Needle-exchange programs are reckless experiments. . . .
Needle exchanges also affect poor communities adversely.
For instance, the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center is
one of New York City's largest needle-exchange programs.
According to tenant groups I talked to, the center, since it
began in 1992, has become a magnet not only for addicts but
for dealers as well. . . .
The indisputable fact is that needle exchanges merely help
addicts continue to use drugs. . . .
Mr. President, I point out the last time that an amendment like this
appeared before the Senate, it was adopted 96-4.
General McCaffrey, the Nation's drug czar, says:
As public servants, citizens and parents, we owe our
children an unambiguous no use message. And if they should
become ensnared in drugs, we must offer them a way out, not a
means to continue addictive behavior.
He goes on to say:
The problem is not dirty needles, the problem is heroin
addiction . . . the focus should be on bringing help to the
suffering population--not giving them more effective means to
continue their addiction. One doesn't want to facilitate this
dreadful scourge on mankind.
A spokesman for the Office of Drug Control Policy also said that
``addicts who took part in needle-exchange programs in Vancouver and
Montreal had higher HIV infection rates than addicts who did not
participate.''
Just a word or two about the Vancouver experiment. In the case of
Vancouver's needle exchange program, one of the biggest in the world,
studies show that intravenous drug use increased by 20 percent and
deaths from overdose have increased five-fold since 1988 when the
program started. Some needle exchange programs actually encourage
cocaine and crack injection providing so-called safe crack kits with
instructions on how to inject crack intravenously.
I have one of the kit's brochures. It is the one issued by the
Bridgeport Needle Exchange Program in Bridgeport, CT. It makes an
interesting menu. It starts off:
Get your stuff ready.
Have a cooker, water, syringe, citric or ascorbic acid,
cotton and alcohol wipes ready.
Put crack and citric or ascorbic acid (about a pinch to a
slab), in a cooker. Add plenty of water (about) 30 to 40 I.U.
of water. Smash and mix well.
Add cotton and draw up into the syringe.
Get your vein ready.
Tie off, find a good vein and clean with a alcoholic wipe.
Inject, make sure you are in a vein, register, look for
blood back flow in syringe.
Slowly push plunger in for injection. This helps to avoid
vein trauma and collapse.
Withdraw needle. Apply pressure for about a minute. Use
clean gauze tissue. . . .
Well, anyway, it goes on to say: Take care of yourself. Use vitamin
C, eat a good diet, and things will be just fine.
I agree with General McCaffrey. I especially agree that in the
Nation's Capital we do not want to send the messages of a needle
exchange program.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Ashcroft of Missouri be added as
a cosponsor to my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I can assure the Senate and the Nation
that we will continue pressing for this amendment. I believe we are
going to succeed and overcome our foes that have caused us to have to
withdraw this tonight. I think we are going to be successful because I
think common sense, in this case, will prevail again.
I ask unanimous consent that when the time assigned to Senator Durbin
expires this amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing none, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent
agreement I am given 10 minutes to speak in opposition to this
amendment; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, sir.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
This is a tough topic. I not only don't care to talk about
intravenous drug injection, I can't stand watching it on television.
I find myself in the middle of a debate where you have to face the
reality of what this is all about. The reality is that too many people
in the District of Columbia--wait a minute--too many people in America
have become IV drug users. We are trying to reduce that number, not
only because addiction to drugs can ruin your life but also because
there are other dangers associated with it, such as HIV and AIDS and
hepatitis, and so many other things that cause problems.
I find it interesting that the Senator from Georgia, together, I
understand, with the Senator from Missouri, comes here to try to stop
the needle exchange program in the District of Columbia, because as we
look at a map of the United States showing the States that have needle
exchange programs, we see there is a needle exchange program in the
home State of the Senator from Georgia and there is a needle exchange
program in the home State of the Senator from Missouri.
As you look across the Nation, you see that many States are trying
these programs. I am certain that the Senator from Georgia has spent a
great deal of time trying to overturn the decision in his own State.
That is probably why he comes here in this crusade against the D.C.
needle exchange program.
But before we dismiss this as something that might encourage drug
use, please, let's look at the facts.
The highest rate of new HIV infections is in [Washington,
DC.] AIDS kills in the District like no other cause of death
for residents between ages 30 and 44.
I am quoting from a July 1, 1999, Washington Post editorial. I ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, July 1, 1997]
How to Spread HIV in D.C.
When the Senate takes up the District's fiscal year 2000
budget, a floor amendment may be offered to ban a needle-
exchange program in the city. A yes vote is a green light to
allow HIV to spread unimpeded among intravenous drug users.
The District has strong reason for an effective needle-
exchange program. The highest rate of new HIV infections is
in the nation's capital. AIDS kills in the District like no
other cause of death, for residents between ages 30 and 44.
The city has the distinction of
[[Page S8056]]
having an AIDS death rate seven times the national average.
As if this weren't tragic enough, the city also has to
contend with needle-exchange opponents attacking a program
that has--through the Whitman Walker Clinic--reduced the
spread of HIV by causing a 29 percent drop in the number of
drug injections.
Opponents will argue that needle-exchange programs promote
drug use. That has not been the District's experience. Nor
has it been the experience of more than 113 other state and
local government-supported programs across the nation. Maybe
that's why the American Medical Association, the National
Academy of Sciences, the American Bar Association and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have thrown
their weight behind the program.
Last year Congress unwisely added to another District law a
prohibition on funding a needle-exchange program. In an act
of legislative overkill, it also required that private groups
spending their own money on such programs lose any federal
funds they might receive. That took the Whitman Walker Clinic
out of the picture. As a result, a local group receiving only
private funds is trying to fight the spread of HIV on a
shoestring budget. That's the wrong way to fight a killing
disease. The District should be able to spend its own money
on this lifesaving program.
Mr. DURBIN. I will continue:
[Washington, DC] has the distinction of having an AIDS
death rate seven times the national average. As if this
weren't tragic enough, the city also has to contend with
needle-exchange opponents attacking a program that has--
through the Whitman Walker Clinic--reduced the spread of HIV
by causing a 29 percent drop in the number of drug
injections.
So we have a terrible scourge of HIV and AIDS right here in the
Nation's Capital--seven times the national average. We have a program
that tries to convince HIV users, through a needle exchange, to stop
it, to go through drug rehab, to end their addiction. And it is
successful.
As a result of the program, there was a 29-percent drop in the number
of drug injections. The Senator from Georgia--and he is going to
withdraw the amendment, in fairness to him--the Senator from Georgia
says the best thing we can do is eliminate that program. That is an
invitation for more HIV and AIDS and more addiction.
Mr. President, 75 percent of the cases of babies born with HIV are
due to the use of dirty needles by either the mother or the father, and
70 percent of the cases of women with HIV are due to their own or their
partner's use of contaminated needles.
That is what the debate is all about. It pains me to even talk about
this topic. I am not comfortable with it. But I think we have to be
honest if we want to deal with public health issues. We should say--and
I think it should be a standard--that we will not support a needle
exchange program unless it fits two criteria: First, it has a valid
public health purpose--and I certainly believe that the elimination or
reduction of HIV and AIDS in the District of Columbia is such a valid
purpose--and, secondly, it must not encourage addiction to drugs.
There is absolutely no evidence that this program in the District
encourages addiction. In fact, just the opposite is true. Those who
come to these clinics end up getting in programs where they finally--
perhaps after a lifetime of addiction--find themselves drug-free so
that their babies can be born drug-free.
I am glad that the Senator from Georgia is going to withdraw this
amendment. As difficult as it is to talk about some of these issues, we
must face the reality that it is part of our responsibility.
The needle exchange program, which he would have restricted, is
supported by many groups that I think have great stature in our
country: The American Medical Association, the National Academy of
Sciences, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Bar
Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and many others.
Again, I am happy the Senator is going to withdraw his amendment.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1222 Withdrawn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just say, I commend Senator
Coverdell for offering the amendment. I think that because of the
opposition, he withdrew it. But if this is a subject that will come up
in our conference committee, I will be supportive of the amendment. I
think it is a tragedy to give any credence to the notion that it is OK
to use drugs and we just wanted to make sure you have clean needles to
do it.
So this may come back. When it does, I will certainly be favorable to
making sure we do not send any kind of signal that would make this an
acceptable occasion in our country.
Mr. President, I think Senator Daschle has asked to put his amendment
up next. I am happy for him to do that.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I have no objection to changing the order so the minority
leader can offer his amendment at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the minority leader is
recognized.
Amendment No. 1223
(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to implement the
notice of decision approved by the National Capital Regional Director,
dated April 7, 1999)
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an
amendment numbered 1223.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 53, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
Sec. 1______.--Wireless Communications.--(a) In General.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 7
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National
Park Service, shall--
(1) implement the notice of decision approved by the
National Capital Regional Director, dated April 7, 1999,
including the provisions of the notice of decision concerning
the issuance of right-of-way permits at market rates; and
(2) expend such sums as are necessary to carry out
paragraph (1).
(b) Antenna Applications.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, a Federal agency that receives an
application to locate a wireless communications antenna on
Federal property in the District of Columbia or surrounding
area over which the Federal agency exercises control shall
take final action on the application, including action on the
issuance of right-of-way permits at market rates.
(2) Guidance.--In making a decision concerning wireless
service in the District of Columbia or surrounding area, a
Federal agency described in paragraph (1) may consider, but
shall not be bound by, any decision or recommendation of--
(A) the National Capital Planning Commission; or
(B) any other area commission or authority.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation and
indulgence. I appreciate very much the opportunity to go out of order.
This should not take very long.
Mr. President, I want to just take a couple of minutes to talk about
why I believe this amendment is needed, primarily for the Record, but
also for those who may be interested in knowing of a problem that I
think is a serious one that has to be addressed.
After 4 years of delay, the National Park Service tentatively
approved applications to locate two cellular antennae in Rock Creek
Park on April 8 of this year. These antennae will be located in areas
that are already developed; namely, the Park Service Maintenance Yard
and the Fitzgerald Tennis Center. Engineering tests show that the
antennae cannot be seen by park users.
In March of 1999, the Park Service completed the environmental
assessment and concluded that these antennae pose no significant
environmental impact.
Federal law directs agencies to make their property available to
communications facilities so long as they comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act, which these antennae do.
Unfortunately, even though the decision was approved on April 8, even
though we have now waited 4 years, the
[[Page S8057]]
National Park Service has yet to announce its final decision. This
amendment would simply require them to finish the process within 1 week
of enactment--now after 4 years.
The U.S. Park Police has testified repeatedly that communication
antennae are needed in Rock Creek Park because large sections of the
park lack a reliable communications service. The police rely on
commercial wireless communications for their own protection and to
respond to the public's calls. Joggers, emergency medical groups, and
other park users also testified these antennae will provide key links
to police and rescue personnel. When someone is injured, rapid response
may mean the difference between life and death.
The U.S. Park Police reported in Rock Creek Park over 3,500 safety
incidents, including 348 violent crimes, 1,600 criminal offenses, and
1,664 traffic accidents in that 4-year period, from July 1995 to April
1999. When these incidents occur, there is no way for a victim or a
Good Samaritan to call 911.
Our amendment ensures the intention of the Telecommunications Act is
simply carried out. The act recognizes that Federal property should be
available for locating the antennae so essential services for wireless
communication can be provided.
In many locations in the D.C. area, Federal property holdings are
extensive and afford the only reasonable location for such antennae.
This amendment supports these initiatives. When the consideration of
applications determines that the antennae meet applicable Federal
environmental and other requirements, neither the Federal agencies nor
local administrations should have any cause to block them. This
amendment clarifies the current law for the Washington region like
other jurisdictions and requires approval of these facilities if they
meet all the Federal requirements.
That is an explanation of my amendment. I hope that, and I appreciate
very much, under the unanimous consent agreement, we will have a voice
vote on this matter. I certainly hope it can be maintained in
conference, because I think this is a critical issue for public safety
and also for the need for Federal responsiveness on issues of this
import.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the explanation of the amendment
sounded very good. I had not seen the amendment until earlier this
evening. I am happy to go forward with a vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment having expired, the
question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1223.
The amendment (No. 1223) was agreed to.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill, the
Senator from Texas, and my colleague, the Senator from Illinois.
Amendment No. 1224
(Purpose: To strike Federal funding for the District of Columbia
resident tuition support program)
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the next item on the unanimous consent
agreement is Senator Durbin's tuition assistance program amendment.
Twenty minutes will be given to Senator Durbin, and I will control 10
minutes, at the end of which time Senator Durbin will withdraw.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 1224.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 5, strike beginning with line 17 through page 6,
line 4.
On page 11, line 1, after the semicolon insert ``up to''.
On page 11, line 2, after ``resident'' insert ``college''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, a bipartisan group of legislators,
Congressmen from this region, came up with an idea that is a very good
one. It is an effort to try to promote higher education among the
residents of the District of Columbia.
Washington, DC, does not have a major public university. The young
people in D.C. are disadvantaged. People living in the State of Texas,
young people living in the State of Illinois can consider a number of
public universities and colleges and qualify for in-State resident
tuition, which is usually much lower than those out of State.
That same benefit is not available for the young people in the
District of Columbia by and large, and this scholarship idea, which was
promoted by the Clinton administration, as well as local Congressmen
and many others in this area, has come forward. It is one that I
wholeheartedly support. I think this tuition assistance program is an
excellent idea. The estimated cost is about $17 million a year. That
sum is appropriated in this bill.
Having said that, though, I have taken exception to a fact of life in
the District of Columbia. I mentioned at the outset that the District
of Columbia is going through major reform, major revitalization. We
have changed the Federal contribution to help the District in some
regards. For example, we are paying more Medicaid in the District of
Columbia than in my home State of Illinois. We are paying for certain
benefits, like a $5,000 tax credit for those first-time homebuyers in
the District, things to encourage the District of Columbia to stand on
its own feet.
They have made progress. I give credit to Mayor Williams and the city
council for a lot of positive things that have occurred in a very short
period of time.
Having said that, though, there is an action by the D.C. City Council
which I consider to be the height of irresponsibility. That was a
decision by this city council this year to give $59 million in tax cuts
to D.C. residents.
Mark my words, any politician would like to stand up and say: I am
going to give you a tax cut. Everyone applauds. That is a natural
applause line. But when you take a look at the District of Columbia and
the situation that it faces, it is almost incredible that they would
decide at this moment in history that they have $59 million they can't
figure out how to spend; $59 million they want to return in tax cuts,
some of them in the neighborhood of $100 or $150 a year, $2 a week, $3
a week, for a total of $59 million. This is a tax cut in a city that
has serious infrastructure problems and serious problems when it comes
to the very basic things.
Let me give you an example. Here we are at the Capitol Building. A
lot of my staff members live nearby. One of my staffers said to me the
other evening: I am going home.
I said: Do you need a ride?
He said: I just live five blocks away. He paused and said: But come
to think of it, a woman was stabbed and murdered in my neighborhood
last week. I will take a ride, if you don't mind.
I said: Do you know what you need in your neighborhood, where murders
are occurring? You need a tax cut.
Well, I think we know better. The people in the District of Columbia,
more than anything else, need police protection. They need protection
because we have the highest murder rate in the Nation right here in the
District of Columbia, more than twice the next city in any State in
this entire country.
I had some time to look over what has happened with the D.C. Police
Department. The D.C. City Council can't seem to see any need there
beyond the current budget. In fact, they want to give away $59 million.
Let me tell you a little bit about the D.C. Police Department. I
think it has a good chief. Chief Ramsey comes from Chicago. I think he
is making changes. But they wanted to have 3,800 policemen in the
District of Columbia, and they can't find them. They found about 3,500,
so they are short of the mark of even having the force in the city that
they hope to have.
When the new chief took over a year ago, he looked around the
District of Columbia Police Department and learned that 75 percent of
the telephones in the D.C. Police Department were rotary phones. This
is like traveling in Eastern Europe after the wall came down and
discovering what is left of the Soviet empire. You travel around the
D.C. city government and wonder how in the world did it get so bad.
This D.C. City Council can look beyond that. They can look beyond the
[[Page S8058]]
fact that the policemen in the District of Columbia were not receiving
firearms training a year ago. They can look beyond the fact that the
D.C. policemen were not even trained for conducting sobriety tests. Can
you imagine that? They didn't pull over speeders who were drunk because
only 200 of the policemen, out of 3,800, had been trained in giving a
basic sobriety test. In most cities in the Nation, 100 percent of the
force receives that training.
The deficiencies, one after another, stack up until the people in
this poor city worry more about getting hit in the head than whether
they are going to get a tax cut. This is really, in my mind, quite a
tragedy. If it were a family situation and you were trying to draw an
analogy, the D.C. City Council decided to go out and buy a big screen
TV although it couldn't afford to buy a lock for the front door of the
house. That is what the tax cut is all about.
Give away $59 million in a city with these problems? That is not it
alone. As I mentioned earlier, the D.C. public schools really need
help. They have brought on some new people in an effort to try to deal
with that. I hope it works. But the belief by the D.C. City Council
that putting money into summer programs, early childhood development,
afterschool programs is unnecessary, really strikes me as insensitive
to the reality of the need for improving public education in the
District of Columbia.
When the Mayor came and spoke to us, incidentally, he told us
something which was troubling--I have a chart that demonstrates it--on
children in the District of Columbia. The Casey Foundation took a look
at kids in the District of Columbia, kids in Washington, DC. With one
exception--and they looked at all the different criteria for children,
and that was the high school dropout rate--the District of Columbia
ranked worst in the Nation in every category involving children.
D.C. City Council, are you listening? The children you represent in
these wards out here are the worst in the Nation in every single
category. You can't figure out where to put $59 million, so you want to
declare a dividend and give it away.
Why don't you consider, for a moment, the percent of low-birth-weight
babies in the District of Columbia, the worst in the Nation, worse than
any other State; the infant death rate in the District of Columbia is
the worst in the Nation, twice the national average; the child death
rate; the rate of teen deaths by accident and homicide; the teen birth
rate; the percent of teens not attending school and not working; the
percent of children living with parents who do not have full-time,
year-round employment is last place in the District of Columbia; the
percent of children in poverty; the percent of families headed by a
single parent is the worst in the Nation.
The D.C. City Council has blinders on when it comes to the kids in
the District of Columbia. They are more intent on the theory of a tax
cut; they want to give $100. What is $100 worth when you are holding a
premature baby who has to stay in the hospital for week after week and
month after month in the hope that when it is all said and done, that
child will have enough strength and intelligence to lead a normal life?
Wouldn't you, as a member of the D.C. City Council, stop and say: Maybe
we ought to dedicate a few dollars to the kids; maybe we ought to
dedicate a few dollars to the police department?
I can't tell you, in my experience here in Washington, DC, how many
times I have heard about the incidence of crime and how close it has
come. I was a student here; I went to college and law school here. I
have lived a big part of my life in Washington, DC. I have seen a lot
of it. There is crime in other cities, make no mistake; but the rate of
crime in this town is just incredible. The rate of auto theft is the
worst in the Nation. A year ago, there was 1 police officer out of
3,500 who was assigned this responsibility of auto theft. These sorts
of things, I suggest, the D.C. City Council ought to be taking into
consideration--things that, frankly, cry out for a response.
The D.C. City Council says: No, we are not going to spend the money
on the kids, we are not going to spend the money on the crime.
Pick up the Washington Post any morning of any day of any week, and
you will find another story that is scandalous about what is happening
in the District of Columbia. We have quotes here about homicides. Just
in the last few months, a girl, 15, died in gang crossfire; an
anticrime activist--he worked in one of the neighborhoods near Capitol
Hill--was killed; a victim feared for family safety; four were arrested
after a woman was killed by a stray bullet.
Last week, a grandmother--an innocent person--was killed by a stray
bullet in a drive-by shooting. Little babies are being killed by guns.
The D.C. City Council, when it reads headlines in the morning, must say
that crime is so bad in the District that we need a tax cut.
That is what it is all about. If there is a belief that a tax cut is
going to bring people back to the District to live, it is such a naive
belief. People will live in the District of Columbia when it is safe to
live in this District, when the schools are good schools, when the city
meets its most basic needs. This idea, this perfidy that we can somehow
answer the needs of the District with a tax cut, I find troubling.
That is why I raised the concern about this college tuition program.
To think that we would take $17 million from the Federal Treasury and
give it to the District of Columbia for this college assistance program
at a time when the District of Columbia is giving away $59 million, I
found to be particularly offensive--not that the program for college
tuition isn't a good one, but the District of Columbia, apparently, has
money to burn, money to give away, money to award in tax cuts, in a
city that is in shambles, when you look at the basics.
I don't want to get into graphic details here. This mayor said he is
going to do everything in his power to eradicate rats in this city. It
is estimated that the rat population is larger than the human
population in Washington, DC, and that doesn't include politicians in
Congress. It is estimated that these problems cause public health
hazards that, frankly, are rampant across Washington, DC. D.C. City
Council says: We are not going to spend any of that $59 million on rat
eradication; we are going to give a tax cut.
I think if they want to bring people to the District and businesses
to the District, tax cuts can be part of the answer--after you have met
the basics. If you can't afford a roof on your home, you won't go out
and buy a swimming pool. If you can't afford the basics of food in the
cupboard, you don't rent a caterer for a patio party. The D.C. City
Council just doesn't get it; they are going to give away this $59
million.
I have been prepared to offer an amendment that would have said the
money that was going to be allocated in this bill for this program
would be stricken, $14 million. For the sake of the Record at this
point, I want to offer the amendment.
Amendment No. 1224
(Purpose: To strike Federal funding for the District of Columbia
resident tuition support program)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 1224.
On page 5, strike beginning with line 17 through page 6,
line 4.
On page 11, line 1, after the semicolon insert ``up to''.
On page 11, line 2, after ``resident'' insert ``college''.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am going to withdraw the amendment. I
received a telephone call from the White House today, and it is very
clear that this college tuition assistance program is very important to
the President, and I understand it. It is something that was part of
his budget, something that he believes would be very good for the
children of the District of Columbia.
I have asked and received the assurance of the administration that
when the District of Columbia makes next year's budget request, we are
going to hold them to a very sensible yardstick. We are going to ask
them whether their experiment worked. We are going to ask them whether
or not this idea of a $59 million tax cut did, in fact, not only
improve the quality of life in the District, but address the most basic
problems--whether or not the crime
[[Page S8059]]
rate has come down, whether or not children are better off, and whether
or not the schools are improved.
The District of Columbia will be held accountable. With that
assurance, I can assure those who are listening that if I am still
serving on the subcommittee, as I expect to be, I will apply the same
standard. To the D.C. City Council, I say: I don't think you can have
it both ways. I don't think you can give away the money in a tax cut
and meet basic needs in the city. You have 12 months to prove me wrong.
I will be watching.
I will be offering a sense-of-the-Senate resolution in a few moments
that addresses some of the yardsticks and criteria we hope to use in
measuring the performance of the D.C. City Council.
At this point, I ask how much time I have remaining under the
unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. At this point, I ask that my 5 minutes be held until
Senator Hutchison has an opportunity to respond. If I may close, I will
appreciate that.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have listened to Senator Durbin's
arguments on his amendment, and I have to say I am pleased that he is
withdrawing the amendment, because I think his amendment is absolutely
flat wrong.
Let's talk about what would give kids a chance in the District of
Columbia. A better education system would give kids a better chance in
the District of Columbia. We are funding health care for children in
this District with the Federal programs that are available throughout
our country. We are providing better support for education--well, we
are not providing it; in fact, I think the District is providing it,
and I think they are doing a good job. They are saying that charter
schools should be given a chance, that if a child cannot be given a
good public education in this system and that child chooses to go to a
charter school, they will have an equal allocation of resources as if
they were going to a public school--which a charter school is.
So the District is addressing education, because they want their kids
to have a chance. We are putting more in crime prevention in this bill,
in crime control, because we do think it is important to clean up
neighborhoods. But a very important part of cleaning up neighborhoods
is the tax cuts the District consensus budget envisions.
Now, the Senator from Illinois refers to these as giving away $59
million. Well, first of all, I don't think income tax cuts are giving
money away. They are letting people who earn the money keep more of
what they earn. Now, why would we support the District's decision to do
that? Because the District is trying to clean up the neighborhoods, to
do exactly what the Senator from Illinois wants to do--that is, have
safe and clean neighborhoods throughout the District of Columbia.
The way they are doing this is with, I think, a quite balanced tax
cut program. The tax cuts for business will attract business into the
city. This city needs more business investment. It is a government
city. There isn't much commercial activity. The commercial activity
will clean up property. It will provide jobs. It will have economic
viability. But it will also have more investment in beautification of
the city.
Attracting business through tax cuts is something that is being done
all over this country by cities that are trying to be progressive and
improve their quality of life.
The tax cuts on the income tax side are so modest that I don't see
how anyone could possibly disagree with them. People in the District
who make $10,000 pay 6 percent in income taxes, and it would be lowered
to 4 percent. It also gives breaks to the middle-income families that
we want to be able to live in the District.
We want to have a full range of families able to live in the
District, and we are trying to support the District's efforts to do
exactly that--to make this a family-friendly city.
That is why it is so incredible that we would have any opposition to
the tuition assistance plan, because one of the factors that a family
uses to choose where it lives is the higher education potential for
their children. I have had people tell me that it is like getting a
$25,000-a-year pay raise to move to Texas because in-State tuition at
Texas University is so low. I mean, it is ridiculously low. It is about
$1,000.
So a person moving to Texas getting a first-rate education from the
University of Texas, Texas A&M, all of our colleges, and universities
that are rated in the top 10, top 20, in many fields, have a good
bargain.
But what about a child who is growing up in the District of Columbia?
They don't have a State university where they have an equal opportunity
to go with in-State tuition because people are paying taxes to that
State. This bill gives them that equal chance. This bill will equalize
out-of-State tuition costs for D.C. students. So if they qualify to go
to the University of Maryland, or the University of Virginia, or I hope
the University of Texas, they will be able to have that added tuition
they would have as an out-of-State student with these tuition
assistance programs.
I think it is part of the overall strategy of the District to make
this city family friendly. They are making every attempt in the budget
they presented to us to give them a better chance for education at the
grade school, middle school, and high school level. This bill gives
them the chance to have out-of-State tuition lowered to in-State
tuition, where they would qualify anywhere in the country.
This bill gives them more in crime prevention, more in crime control,
and it says to businesses: We want you to come to the District, we want
you to make an investment in the District, because we want to clean up
the neighborhoods; and we know it is going to take a public-private
partnership to do it.
But I think this bill is quite balanced. I think the District has
done a terrific job in trying to use the money it has--both the Federal
budget side and the local budget side--to do what is necessary to
attract families back into the District to live, and to keep the
families that are here living here. If they don't do something about
the income tax rate, they are never going to attract people, because
the income tax rates on either side of them in Maryland and Virginia
are half of what they are in the District.
I think the Mayor and the council should be commended for saying: We
are going to make our city attractive, we are going to do it in a
balanced way, and we are going to meet the needs of the children in the
District. But every city in the country is looking for ways to make
their cities attractive.
I am going to support the District in their efforts to make this city
attractive for families. I am going to continue to work with Senator
Durbin to try to make sure we are funding crime control in open air
drug markets. I am going to continue to work with the District in
trying to give charter schools a chance, if public education isn't
serving the needs of individual children.
Let's give competition a chance. I think the District has been quite
progressive in doing that in their budget.
I defend the tax cuts. I defend the tuition assistance program, which
has bipartisan support, and the support of the President and the
support of the District. I think we are going to see this city turn
around.
I am going to support the council in every way I can when I think
they are going in the right direction. I think they are going in the
right direction with tuition assistance. I hope Congress will authorize
this program so we can put it into effect for the next university year.
I think we will see a lot of activity in the District with people
wanting to come here, stay here, and raise their families here. That
will be good for every American, because a safe city, a clean city, and
a city that has a low crime rate is going to be a city that every
American wants to bring their families to visit as our Capital City.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
I respect what the Senator from Texas has said. I agree with much of
what she said. I certainly agree the college tuition assistance program
is a good one. I support it.
[[Page S8060]]
I hope you can tell from the debate that our point of disagreement is
on the tax cut, and my belief is that tax cut money--at least a portion
of it--should be dedicated toward making the District a safer place to
live, and making D.C. schools better schools--and addressing some of
the serious problems the children in this District face, problems which
are, frankly, of a third world nature and seem to be ignored by this
D.C. City Council.
Let me tell you, you shouldn't take the word of a Senator from
Illinois, nor a Senator from Texas, about what D.C. residents are
interested in; you should take their own word.
When you look at the surveys of the people of the District of
Columbia, Washington, DC, and their priorities, you search down that
list for a long way before they start talking about taxes. High on the
list is their concern about safety and crime in their neighborhoods.
How low could you bring taxes to attract a person into a neighborhood
where they felt as though they were not safe?
So many members of my staff who would love to live on Capitol Hill
where I live have finally reached the conclusion that they can't. One
member of my staff, after she was mugged a second time on Capitol Hill,
and her face was swollen for about a week, gave up and moved out of
Washington, DC, to a neighboring suburb. The taxes had nothing to do
with that.
I talked to another young couple, just the kind of people who should
be living in the District to make a great contribution. They said it
finally just wore them down--their concern about crime, their concern
about the filth they saw in the streets, and the rats running across
the streets as they came home in the evening. It finally just wore them
down, and they picked up and moved to a neighboring suburb. They didn't
mention taxes. I am sure it is a concern. Nobody wants to pay any more
taxes than they have to.
But I think if this District were more livable when it came to the
basics of protecting families in their own homes and neighborhoods that
you would attract more people to live in what is otherwise in many
places one of the most beautiful cities in America. The Senator from
Texas said she wants Washington, DC, to be family friendly. I couldn't
agree more. But first it has to be family safe. Unfortunately, it isn't
close.
When they did a survey of the people in the District of Columbia, 48
percent said they live in fear of crime in their neighborhood. When
they asked people in the District of Columbia, they had the highest
percentage of residents among 12 cities surveyed indicating the
presence of abandoned cars and rundown buildings. When they asked the
residents in the District of Columbia whether or not they had problems
of public drug sales, they had the highest response in the Nation.
Panhandling and begging was the highest in the Nation.
These are quality-of-life issues that need to be addressed by the
city council that should get its head out of the clouds and down on the
street, talking to the people they represent.
amendment no. 1224 withdrawn
Mr. DURBIN. I ask my amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1224) was withdrawn.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator
from Illinois would strike the $17 million which is included in this
bill to support a program offering tuition assistance to DC students
who are pursuing postsecondary education. As the author of legislation
to authorize this program, I strongly oppose the Durbin amendment.
In crafting my legislation--which is cosponsored by Senators
Hutchison, Warner, and Moynihan--I have been mindful of the need for
fiscal responsibility. The $17 million included in the DC
appropriations bill is the amount recommended in the President's
budget. Although I would agree that any amounts above this figure
should come from sources other than the Federal treasury, I do believe
it is appropriate for the Federal government to participate in an
effort to place DC students on an even keel with students in other
parts of the country.
The authorization process for the DC tuition bill is well underway.
Under the leadership of Representative Tom Davis and DC Delegate
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the House of Representatives approved ``The
District of Columbia College Access Act'' without a dissenting vote.
The Senate Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring and the District of Columbia--chaired by Senator
Voinovich--recently held a hearing on this initiative. I am working
actively with him and other members of the Senate to move forward with
sound legislation.
The legislation I have introduced and the measure approved by the
House share the same goal. That goal is to provide citizens of the
District with a greater range of options in pursuing postsecondary
education by having the Federal government offer support that, in other
areas of the country, is provided by State governments.
Throughout my career in Congress, I have made support for education
one of my top priorities, and I have regarded the education of DC
students as being an important part of my efforts.
I am therefore delighted at the level of interest and support which
the DC tuition concept has received.
With respect to public postsecondary education, DC students exploring
their options find they have a more limited set of choices than any
other group of students in the country. A student in any of the 50
states who wishes to attend a public institution of higher education
has a number of institutions among which to choose. That student can
base his or her decision on considerations such as the size of the
institution and the strengths of the various programs it offers. A
student in the District of Columbia finds that only one public
institution is available.
As a practical matter, the District cannot expand its boundaries, nor
can it establish a system of public higher education that can offer the
diversity of offerings available in the various states. Every State
provides support for higher education from which their residents
benefit through lower in-state tuition, while out-of-state residents
pay a premium to attend. I believe it is appropriate for the Federal
government to assume the role of the State, effectively pushing the
boundaries to a point where District students are placed on an equal
footing in terms of the public education choices available to them.
The legislation also recognizes that many District residents choose
to attend one of the many private postsecondary institutions in the DC
area. Many of these institutions have made extraordinary efforts to
enable District residents to succeed in their pursuit of advanced
education. A number of states have developed programs, such as the
Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant (TAG), to assist students at private
institutions in defraying costs. The program authorized in my bill is
modeled after these initiatives.
This legislation also complements not only those programs such as
``Everybody Wins!'' and the Potomac Regional Education Partnership
(PREP) with which I have been directly involved, but also the many
other initiatives undertaken by individuals and institutions who work
tirelessly to nurture the potential of the children of our Nation's
capital. Members of the business community have recently launched a
program known as the D.C. College Access Program (DC-CAP) which will
offer both financial support for students pursuing postsecondary
education and assistance to high school students to assure they are
prepared to tackle the challenges of higher learning.
An investment in education is one of the most important investments
we as a society and we as individuals can make. There are boundless
opportunities in the DC area for individuals with education and
training beyond high school. DC residents should not be left behind in
obtaining the capacity to take advantage of these opportunities.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as part of last October's Omnibus
Appropriations bill, a provision (Section 130) in the District of
Columbia's FY 99 appropriations placed a $50 per hour/$1,300 per case
cap on attorney's fees in cases brought under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the District.
In signing the bill, President Clinton singled out the cap in his
remarks, calling it ``unacceptable'' and he
[[Page S8061]]
pledged to eliminate the cap this year. However, it has again been
included in this bill to fund the District. (Sec. 128)
This cap has made it virtually impossible for local special education
attorneys to accept cases on contingency, which is required for
indigent parents and court-supervised children. Attorneys are forced to
demand retainers from these residents, which precludes low-income
parents from obtaining legal representation at all. In the end, the
poorest kids in the District receive inadequate services from DCPS.
Federal law under the IDEA provides for the recovery of reasonable
attorneys' fees at market rates. IDEA was passed with the understanding
that it applied to cases in all jurisdictions. Congress, however, has
singled out the District of Columbia and in effect has singled out poor
families and children who struggle to get even a basic education.
DCPS spends $165 million per year on about 12,000 special education
students. The average per-pupil cost comes out to be $17,000 per year.
One in 10 District students are in need of special education program
services.
Yet, services rendered to these students are substandard at best.
Disabled children wait months, and in some cases years, to have their
special education needs evaluated by DCPS. Since DCPS doesn't have
nearly enough special education programs to accommodate its students,
students wait lengthy periods of time to be placed in an appropriate
classroom setting where they can receive essential related services.
In order to get these deserving kids assessed, parents have had to
resort to litigation to get their children the services the law allows
them. The tangled system of DCPS is unnavigable without an experienced
attorney and most parents can't afford to hire and retain counsel for
their children.
So for years, lawyers have sued the system on behalf of thousands of
children with physical, emotional or learning disabilities who have not
received proper assessments or services. The school system is required
to pay legal fees when the child's case prevails--which has occurred
most of the time.
The Washington Times reported in March that DCPS has committed funds
to hire eight private attorneys to defend the school system in special
education cases. It is disconcerting that the District is willing to
pay the prevailing rate to ``defense'' attorney's to oppose parents,
but it claims it can't afford to pay the prevailing rate to attorneys
to represent parents seeking to have their children assessed.
Three class action suits have been filed against DCPS and recently,
two of those lawsuits were settled. Under the terms of the settlement,
the school system has agreed to hold hearings or otherwise resolve the
backlog of hearing requests, estimated at more than 700, by the end of
summer. The backlog of some 400 unimplemented decisions will be cleared
up in stages, with the goal of reaching compliance with all decisions
and agreement by the end of the first semester of the 1999-2000 school
year. One more class-action suit against the division remains
unresolved.
In one of those cases, Federal District Court Judge Paul Friedman
ruled on May 11 that:
$4 million assessed for failure to comply with past court orders
``has to be paid'';
The school system violated legal provisions by trying to apply the
congressional cap on fees for work performed before the cap was set;
The school system must pay more than $400,000 to one law firm,
Feldman, Tucker, Leifer, Fidell & Bank, which has been handling a
class-action lawsuit for several years and has not been paid in more
than a year; and
Nothing in the law prevents judges from awarding attorney fees in
special-education cases that continue longer than the one-year cap
imposed this year. The city would simply be liable to pay the rest next
year, or whenever the cap is lifted [``The statute doesn't tell me I
can't award more than $50 an hour. It tells you can't pay more that $50
an hour.'']
The special education problems are an embarrassment and need to be
resolved. The school system has to address this and the kids are
entitled to counsel and counsel deserve to be paid fairly and
reasonably for their work and the time.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. This is a matter we can take up in conference.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, according to the unanimous consent
agreement, it is now appropriate for Senator Durbin's sense of the
Senate on D.C. quality of life. He has 15 minutes under his control; I
have 5 minutes under my control.
I yield the floor to Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas. I will make it brief
because I have spoken on my concerns about the District of Columbia. My
reason for withdrawing the last amendment is my belief that not only is
it a high priority of the White House, it is fundamentally a sound
program, as I said from the start.
My quarrel is what I consider to be the irresponsible action of the
D.C. City Council with the so-called tax cut they have enacted. The
sense of the Senate, which I make a part of this appropriations bill,
says the D.C. City Council has a chance to prove their theory; they
have a chance to prove the $59 million in tax cuts is more important
than $59 million spent on police protection; $59 million, a part of
which could be spent on the schools; $59 million, a part of which could
be spent to try to help these poor babies who are dying because of low
birthweight and other problems.
You have your chance. That is what home rule is all about. The sense
of the Senate says it is a sense of the Senate that in considering the
District of Columbia's fiscal year 2001 budget, the Senate will take
into consideration progress or lack of progress in addressing the
following issues: crime, including the homicide rate; implementation of
community policing; the number of police officers on local beats; and
the closing down of open-air drug markets.
Second, access to drug abuse treatment, including the number of
treatment slots, the number of people served, the number of people on
waiting lists, and the effectiveness of treatment drugs. Remember that
HIV-AIDS is seven times more prevalent in the District of Columbia than
in other city.
The third item on the sense of the Senate is management of parolees
and pretrial violent offenders, including the number of halfway house
escapees, and steps taken to improve monitoring and supervision of
halfway house residents to reduce the number of escapees.
Pick up the paper with regularity and you will find that the so-
called halfway houses have revolving doors. Those accused of felonious
conduct and violent crime are back on the street, walking in the
neighborhoods of the District of Columbia, shoulder to shoulder with
the people who live here and those who come to visit the Nation's
capital.
That has to change. It is one of the criteria which I will personally
use, and I hope others will use, during the course of this
consideration of criteria for future appropriations for the District of
Columbia.
Fourth, education including access to special education services and
student achievement.
Fifth, improvement in the city's basic services, including rat
control and abatement.
Six, the application for and management of Federal grants. This D.C.
city government has not even applied for the money it is eligible for
from the Federal Government. They have to reach a level of competence
and it may mean achieving some in phases. I hope the Mayor is
listening, and I hope the members of the D.C. City Council will be
responsible for that.
Finally, the indicators of child well-being, which I mentioned
earlier. Let's see next year, when we gather to debate this
appropriation, whether the District of Columbia is still in last place
among all the States in the Nation in so many categories which reflect
the well-being of the children who live here.
Amendment No. 1227
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the urgent need
to address basic quality of life concerns in the District of Columbia)
Mr. DURBIN. I retain the remainder of my time and offer the
amendment, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S8062]]
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an
amendment numbered 1227.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. ____ (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The District of Columbia has recently witnessed a spate
of senseless killings of innocent citizens caught in the
crossfire of shootings. A Justice Department crime
victimization survey found that while the city saw a decline
in the homicide rate between 1996 and 1997, the rate was the
highest among a dozen cities and more than double the second
highest city.
(2) The District of Columbia has not made adequate funding
available to fight drug abuse in recent years, and the city
has not deployed its resources as effectively as possible. In
fiscal year 1998, $20,900,000 was spent on publicly funded
drug treatment in the District compared to $29,000,000 in
fiscal year 1993. The District's Addiction and Prevention and
Recovery Agency currently has only 2,200 treatment slots, a
50 percent drop from 1994, with more than 1,100 people on
waiting lists.
(3) The District of Columbia has seen a rash of inmate
escapes from halfway houses. According to Department of
Corrections records, between October 21, 1998 and January 19,
1999, 376 of the 1,125 inmates assigned to halfway houses
walked away. Nearly 280 of the 376 escapees were awaiting
trial including 2 charged with murder.
(4) The District of Columbia public schools system faces
serious challenges in correcting chronic problems,
particularly long-standing deficiencies in providing special
education services to the 1 in 10 District students needing
program benefits, including backlogged assessments, and
repeated failure to meet a compliance agreement on special
education reached with the Department of Education.
(5) Deficiencies in the delivery of basic public services
from cleaning streets to waiting time at Department of Motor
Vehicles to a rat population estimated earlier this year to
exceed the human population have generated considerable
public frustration.
(6) Last year, the District of Columbia forfeited millions
of dollars in Federal grants after Federal auditors
determined that several agencies exceeded grant restrictions
and in other instances, failed to spend funds before the
grants expired.
(7) Findings of a 1999 report by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation that measured the well-being of children reflected
that, with 1 exception, the District ranked worst in the
United States in every category from infant mortality to the
rate of teenage births to statistics chronicling child
poverty.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that in considering the District of Columbia's fiscal year
2001 budget, the Senate will take into consideration progress
or lack of progress in addressing the following issues:
(1) Crime, including the homicide rate, implementation of
community policing, the number of police officers on local
beats, and the closing down of open-air drug markets.
(2) Access to drug abuse treatment, including the number of
treatment slots, the number of people served, the number of
people on waiting lists, and the effectiveness of treatment
programs.
(3) Management of parolees and pretrial violent offenders,
including the number of halfway house escapes and steps taken
to improve monitoring and supervision of halfway house
residents to reduce the number of escapes.
(4) Education, including access to special education
services and student achievement.
(5) Improvement in basic city services, including rat
control and abatement.
(6) Application for and management of Federal grants.
(7) Indicators of child well-being.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Illinois has
a very good sense of the Senate. I think having benchmarks and
accountability we can look at next year is very appropriate. I commend
him for caring about these crime issues and the issues that we all want
to solve.
I certainly support his amendment and suggest we approve it
unanimously.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1227) was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 1228 Through 1231, En Bloc
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have a group of managers' amendments
which I will send to the desk and ask for their immediate
consideration. They have been cleared on both sides. I urge their
adoption. There are two amendments by Senator Dorgan and two amendments
by myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes amendments
numbered 1228 through 1231, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 1228
(Purpose: To encourage the Major of the District of Columbia to adhere
to the recommendations of the Health Care Development Commission with
respect to the use of Medicaid Disproportionate Share payments)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . The Mayor, prior to using Federal Medicaid payments
to Disproportionate Share Hospitals to serve a small number
of childless adults, should consider the recommendations of
the Health Care Development Commission that has been
appointed by the Council of the District of Columbia to
review this program, and consult and report to Congress on
the use of these funds.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1229
(Purpose: To allow the District of Columbia Public Schools to consider
funding of a program to discourage school violence)
On page 13, line 17, insert the following: ``Provided
further, That the District of Columbia Public Schools may
spend $500,000 to engage in a Schools Without Violence
program based on a model developed by the University of North
Carolina, located in Greensboro, North Carolina.''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1230
(Purpose: To require a GAO study of the criminal justice system of the
District of Columbia)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . GAO STUDY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall--
(1) conduct a study of the law enforcement, court, prison,
probation, parole, and other components of the criminal
justice system of the District of Columbia, in order to
identify the components most in need of additional resources,
including financial, personal, and management resources; and
(2) submit to Congress a report on the results of the study
under paragraph (1).
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1231
(Purpose: To amend the District of Columbia Code to require the arrest
and termination of parole of a prisoner for illegal drug use)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. TERMINATION OF PAROLE FOR ILLEGAL DRUG USE.
(a) Arrest For Violation of Parole.--Section 205 of title
24 of the District of Columbia Code is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``If the'' and
inserting the following:
``(a) If the''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), with respect to a
prisoner who is convicted of a crime of violence (as defined
in Sec. 23-1331) and who is released on parole at any time
during the term or terms of the prisoner's sentence for that
offense, the Board of Parole shall issue a warrant for the
retaking of the prisoner in accordance with this section, if
the Board, or any member thereof, has reliable information
(including positive drug test results) that the prisoner has
illegally used a controlled substance (as defined in Sec. 33-
501) at any time during the term or terms of the prisoner's
sentence.''.
(b) Hearing After Arrest; Termination of Parole.--Section
206 of title 24 of the District of Columbia Code is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
with respect to a prisoner with respect to whom a warrant is
issued under section 205(b), if, after a hearing under this
section, the Board of Parole determines that the prisoner has
illegally used a controlled substance (as defined in Sec. 33-
501) at any time during the term or terms of the prisoner's
sentence, the Board shall terminate the parole of that
prisoner.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1227 through 1231) were agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1283, the
District of Columbia Appropriations bill for FY 2000 as reported by the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
The bill provides $410 million in new budget authority and $401
million in new outlays for federal contributions to the District of
Columbia government. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and
other completed actions are taken into account, the Senate bill totals
$410 million in budget authority and $405 million in outlays for FY
2000.
[[Page S8063]]
I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator
Hutchison, for her hard work and diligence in fashioning this bill. The
bill is exactly at the Senate Subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. The
bill is $17 million in budget authority and $12 million in outlays
above the President's request due to the inclusion of a tuition
assistance program for D.C. students who attend out-of-state colleges.
The Administration has requested these funds, however, through the
Department of Education rather than directly to the District of
Columbia.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Budget
Committee scoring of the District of Columbia Appropriations bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1283, D.C. APPROPRIATIONS, 2000--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-
REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Purpose Crime Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............... 410 ...... ......... 410
Outlays........................ 405 ...... ......... 405
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............... 410 ...... ......... 410
Outlays........................ 405 ...... ......... 405
1999 level:
Budget authority............... 621 ...... ......... 621
Outlays........................ 616 ...... ......... 616
President's request:
Budget authority............... 393 ...... ......... 393
Outlays........................ 393 ...... ......... 393
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............... ........ ...... ......... ........
Outlays........................ ........ ...... ......... ........
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED TO:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............... ........ ...... ......... ........
Outlays........................ ........ ...... ......... ........
1999 level:
Budget authority............... (211) ...... ......... (211)
Outlays........................ (211) ...... ......... (211)
President's request:
Budget authority............... 17 ...... ......... 17
Outlays........................ 12 ...... ......... 12
House-passed bill:
Budget authority............... 410 ...... ......... 410
Outlays........................ 405 ...... ......... 405
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
Mr. DOMENICI. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is all the amendments we have pending. If there
are no further amendments, I ask that the bill be read for a third
time.
The bill was ordered to be read for a third time.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I will take a couple of minutes to express my appreciation
to the two managers of this bill. I chaired the subcommittee on
appropriations for the District of Columbia for 7 years, beginning in
1961 and ending in 1968.
This is not just an ordinary city, as we all know. I have traveled in
many areas of the world, as have most Senators. I have been in many
cities of the world, but this is the only Federal city in the world.
This is the only Federal city in the United States.
Referring to the words of the Constitution, article I, section 9, it
is the seat of the Government of the United States. It is not ``a''
seat of the Government of the United States, it is ``the'' seat of the
Government of the United States.
So it is a unique city. It is the only city of its kind in this
country. It is the only city of its kind in the universe.
I compliment these two Senators. It is 20 minutes after 9 o'clock on
what will be the last day the Senate will be in session until after
next week. These two Senators are here discussing important matters.
As I sat here, I thought this bill is one that the Senate should vote
on. Senators should be here and should vote on this bill.
Next year, all things being equal, it is my intention at the present
time to see that we have a vote on this bill, a rollcall vote. I think
Senators should indicate that much interest in ``the'' city of the
Federal Government of the United States.
I happen to agree with the distinguished Senator from Illinois in
respect to his comments concerning a tax cut. Senators will not find me
supporting very many tax cuts, whether it is for the District of
Columbia or elsewhere. I will have plenty to say about that in due
time. But every Senator has a right to his own viewpoint. Every Senator
is here representing his own State, trying to do the best he can. That
is what I am trying to do. But we all have a responsibility toward this
city.
I referred to the job of the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs.
Hutchison, and the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as
being a thankless task. What did I mean by that? That was not spoken in
pejorative terms, it was not in derogation of the District of Columbia,
but it is a thankless task insofar as getting any credit from the folks
back home is concerned. It doesn't get any Senator any votes back home,
if that is what one expects. So in that respect, it is a thankless
task.
But we all, all 100 Senators and every person in the United States,
owe our thanks to the Senators who give of their time to fulfill this
responsibility. It is a responsibility; it is a duty. Nobody wants this
job. I didn't want it, but I held it for 7 years and gave it my best
because I thought that the District of Columbia was entitled to the
best of my talents, my energy, and whatever limited wisdom I possessed.
So we owe that to the District of Columbia. It is our capital. It is
our seat of our Federal Government.
So I thank both Senators. They spend a lot of time on this matter, I
can tell you, and it is not easy. And they are subject to many
criticisms from editorials in papers in the District and from
editorials, probably, in their own States. They are subject to these
criticisms. In return, as I say, they won't get many thanks. But they
get my thanks. I hope to call this to the attention of the Senate, as I
am now trying to do, as I am saying to the people of the United States
who may be watching at this hour: These two Senators are entitled to
the thanks and the congratulations of the people of the United States
and the people of the District of Columbia.
There are people in the District of Columbia who do not look back
with great satisfaction on certain recent years. There is a Delegate to
the U.S. House of Representatives. She has the privilege of the floor.
She is not sitting in the gallery. The rules say that we cannot call
attention to people in the galleries. I hope Senators will read that
rule and refresh their memory. I trust the Presiding Officers will keep
that in mind in the future and call it to the attention of any Senator
who refers to people in the gallery; a person, name those persons. But
we can refer to an elected Delegate to the U.S. House of
Representatives who has the privilege of this floor. I do that now with
respect to Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. She is highly respected,
highly regarded, and she gives the best of her talents and services to
the people of the District of Columbia who elected her. I salute her.
Again, I close by thanking the two fine Senators who have labored
here and worked so late. I daresay the Senator from Texas would
probably be on her way home, home in Texas. And the Senator from
Illinois, I am quite sure, would be on his way home in Illinois. But he
had a job to do here. He had a responsibility. I salute him, I thank
him, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think that was a very special
statement made by the Senator from West Virginia, and I appreciate very
much that he loves this Capitol and the seat of Government for all
Americans. The fact that he spent 7 years on the Appropriations
Committee chairing this subcommittee means that there was a lot of
attention and a lot of care paid to this city.
I think he is right. I think we need to make sure this is a job well
done. This is every bit as important as what I do for my constituents
in Texas, because this is part of what I do for my constituents in
Texas, and that is to make this the city that we all want it to be.
I am very pleased the Senator recognized Delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton. I was going to do that as well, because Delegate Norton is so
interested in everything that applies to the District and she is always
there, making sure that her constituents are represented. I have been
very pleased to work with her and talk to her about these issues that
affect her constituents. I hope she knows that all of us look at this
Capital City as all America's city, which does give it a very special
place in everyone's heart and means that all of us are going to take a
special interest in making it a great city.
[[Page S8064]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I might just take a moment of time here
to thank the Senator from West Virginia. His kind words are high praise
indeed.
This Washington, DC, has many museums which contain many national
treasures, but the Senate has its own treasure in the Senator from West
Virginia, and his dedication to this institution is just unparalleled.
The fact that he would praise us for staying after 9 o'clock to do our
job of course is belied by the fact that he is still here, prepared to
say a few words as well, doing his job, as he always does, for the
people of West Virginia.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia, as well as my colleague from
Texas, for their kindnesses during consideration of this bill.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank both Senators.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think we need to pass the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on final passage of the bill.
The bill (S. 1283) was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Unanimous Consent Agreement
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate receives from the House of Representatives the companion bill to
S. 1283, the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of that
measure, that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of
the Senate bill, S. 1283, as passed, be inserted in lieu thereof, that
the House bill, as amended, be read for a third time and passed, that
the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and the Chair be
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate and that the
foregoing occur without any intervening action or debate.
I further ask unanimous consent that the bill, S. 1283, not be
engrossed, that it remain at the desk pending receipt of the House
companion bill, and that upon passage by the Senate of the House bill
as amended, the passage of S. 1283 be vitiated and the bill be
indefinitely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to thank profusely the staff
who have worked so hard on this bill. As Senator Byrd said earlier,
this takes a lot of time, because there are a lot of issues that are
affected by this bill. I want to thank Mary Beth Nethercutt on the
Appropriations Committee and Terry Sauvain, her counterpart on the
minority side. They have done a wonderful job making sure that all the
t's are crossed and the i's are dotted and the agreements are made and
the agreements to disagree are put on the table. They have done a
wonderful job.
On my staff, my legislative director Jim Hyland and Robb Woodson, who
is the legislative assistant who has done so much to try to make sure
that this is a very good and solid bill supporting the District of
Columbia.
With that, Mr. President, I thank everyone for a job well done and
appreciate once again Senator Durbin's cooperation. We have had a great
relationship. We have agreed to disagree on some issues, but I think he
speaks from the heart, and I understand, even when we disagree, that we
want the same goal. For that reason, I know we will have a good bill to
come back out of conference for the Senate to adopt, and then we will
continue to work with the District government to make sure our views
are implemented and their views are implemented.
I yield the floor.
____________________