[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.

                          ____________________