[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6550-H6558]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2587.

                              {time}  2050


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2587) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against 
revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  (Mr. ISTOOK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here tonight, of course, for general 
consideration of the appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. 
This is a bill that is some $200 million below the amount appropriated 
out of Federal funds last year, the overall amount in the bill because 
it includes, Mr. Chairman, the District-raised funds as well, as some 
$6.8 billion. The Federal share of that is $453 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this measure is the latest stage in the efforts to 
assist the District of Columbia in revitalizing from the situations in 
which it found itself, of course, a number of years ago. There are 
still many residual problems that linger within the District, but yet I 
think it is important that we keep our eye on the positive and put some 
accent upon some things that are heading in the right direction.
  I appreciate the efforts of the ranking member on the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), I am grateful for the efforts 
of our appropriation chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
who himself served for a number of years on this subcommittee, and of 
course we have worked closely with the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  We have also developed, I hope, a good working relationship with the 
new mayor who was elected last November, Tony Williams, and with the 
council of the District. I have worked especially close with the chair 
of the council, Linda Cropp, and I am grateful for their efforts in 
cooperation, and I think it is a sign of the positive note on which we 
have been proceeding that the consensus budget that was developed and 
approved by the mayor, by the city council, and by the Control Board of 
D.C. is intact within this bill.
  We worked with them. We understand that they are undertaking 
significant efforts to rightsize the government within the city, to 
improve the government services, to improve the police and the fire 
protection, to upgrade the quality of public schools, and public school 
facilities. There is a significant effort that the District launched in 
the last couple of years for charter schools which are a part of the 
public school system which this bill also helps to further.
  When the relationship between the Federal Government and the District 
was redefined to help it get on its financial feet and to reorganize 
things a couple of years ago, the Federal Government, rather than 
making these same type of lump sum appropriations have in common until 
that time began making specific appropriations to assume responsibility 
for the conduct of the court system, the corrections system and the 
system to supervise offenders, those upon probation, parole and 
awaiting trial. Those are the main amounts of the Federal portion of 
the $453 million that is the direct Federal appropriation within this 
bill.
  Within that there are some very significant things that we have 
attempted to do within this bill.
  First, we have recognized that D.C. has balanced its budget. A couple 
more years of balanced budget, and it will be removed from the Control 
Board provision that was put in place by Congress a couple of years 
ago.
  We have also recognized that even when we have great efforts at 
economic stimulus and development in D.C. to try to stem the out 
migration that began a number of years ago, it does not do any good to 
have a better developed city if we do not have a safe city.
  We have put a lot of time and effort in this particular appropriation 
to creating a program that is going to be the most striking of its type 
within the country when it comes to making sure that persons who are on 
some sort of early release or pre-release program or parole or 
probation program are remaining drug-free, because such a major portion 
of the crime in D.C. remains linked to the use of illegal drugs.
  There are 30,000 people, Mr. Speaker, who are on probation or parole 
within the District of Columbia who are required as a condition of that 
to remain drug-free. They are not doing it. That is a major reason why 
they are a source of so much of the crime within the city. Some 
estimates are that many people in this offender population are 
committing hundreds of crimes each year to sustain their drug habit and 
because of their drug habit.
  We have in addition to the other drug treatment and drug testing 
programs, a new $25 million initiative that will universally test these 
persons, some of them every week, all of them within every 2 weeks, and 
some of them twice a week to make sure that they are abiding by the 
terms imposed by the courts to stay drug-free, else they will not stay 
free on the streets.
  At the same time there is a significant upgrade in the drug treatment 
programs because we realize that some people cannot get off of drugs on 
their own. By doing this with the offender population, we will also 
free up several million dollars in city funds that were being used to 
treat persons that were in the offender population that will now be 
available for other citizens that are in dire need of drug treatment to 
help the Nation's capital overcome the drug problem and the terrible 
consequences that it is faced with it.
  That is a major effort, the most significant effort undertaken 
anyplace in the country on universal drug testing for those that are on 
a probation or a parole status.

[[Page H6551]]

  We also have several major education initiatives. This House 
previously passed what we refer to as the D.C. scholarship bill. That 
D.C. scholarship bill is recognizing the fact that D.C. does not have a 
state university system, it is not part of the State. Every other State 
in the country, of course, has that and also has a program to enable 
students who do not go to one of the State universities to be assisted 
in their college education.
  The House has voted, the Senate is considering, the program to 
establish that for the District of Columbia. We have within the bill 
the $17 million to create this ability to give a stepping stone into 
higher education for persons that have graduated from high school here 
in the District of Columbia.
  We also do several things with the charter school movement, making 
their status a permanent status rather than a temporary provisional one 
and opening some doors to some financing for facilities for those 
charter schools within D.C.
  We also recognize there is a problem with some 3,300 or so foster 
children that are in the custody of the trustee for foster care within 
the District of Columbia. These are young people that are often trapped 
in long-term foster care, not with their natural parents, not with 
family members, but often shuttled around between different foster care 
families. They need permanent, stable, loving homes. We have an $8\1/2\ 
million initiative to help with the placement and the incentives for 
that so that we can overcome again one of the accumulated problems with 
which D.C. still has to deal.
  We also have a significant environmental effort regarding the 
Anacostia River. One of our members of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham) was very crucial in developing that 
program, a $5 million river clean-up program for the contaminants 
within the Anacostia River.
  We have in addition to that some efforts to assist the mayor and the 
city council in rightsizing the city government. When the Control Board 
was headed by Tony Williams, who now, of course, is the mayor of D.C., 
he was the CFO and was very much involved, of course, in getting rid of 
the overcrowding, shall we say, within some of the city government 
offices rightsizing the city government.

                              {time}  2100

  We have a $20 million incentive for buyouts and early retirements to 
help them reduce another 1,000 persons from the city payroll.
  At the same time, we have some transportation significant items here 
relating especially to the 14th Street Bridge over the Potomac River 
connecting with Virginia, already overburdened with traffic and soon to 
be further overburdened due to some construction on the other 
significant river crossing down at the Wilson Bridge.
  Mr. Chairman, it is also important to note that this bill ratifies 
the action of the Mayor and the city council, their bold economic 
development efforts recognizing that there was a severe problem of 
being overtaxed within the District. They have passed bold legislation 
to reduce income taxes and to reduce property taxes within the District 
of Columbia.
  We ratify that action in this piece of legislation. I say that 
because it is important to always remember that under the Constitution, 
Article I, Section 8, the Congress, although it is delegated to D.C. 
with the home rule charter, nevertheless has the constitutional duty 
and responsibility and exclusive authority, as the Constitution states, 
over all legislative matters within the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a consensus effort. I am very 
appreciative of the efforts of the ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the members of the city 
government, and so many other people that have participated in trying 
to bring a bill that accents the positive things that are going on in 
D.C. Yes, we know there are accumulated problems in crime, in 
education, in many things within the city. But, the officials that have 
taken responsibility for city government in recent months have made a 
very concerted, very praiseworthy effort to attack these problems, and 
we want to thank them for doing that, and we want to work cooperatively 
with them in doing so.

[[Page H6552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JY99.021



[[Page H6553]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good appropriations bill. The appropriations 
part of this bill is a terrific bill, and for that reason, I want to 
commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. He has had an open mind; he 
has had a very solicitous attitude towards everyone who had ideas on 
this bill. He has taken the initiative to walk many of the city 
streets, to visit its schools, to encourage other members of the 
subcommittee to do the same. I think he has done a fine job on the 
appropriations part of this appropriations bill, and I thank him for 
that.
  That is why the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia passed out by voice vote this bill, and in the 
full committee, after eliminating a couple riders, which I will talk 
about in a moment, we passed the bill out of the full committee on 
appropriations as well. So everything should be fine.
  In fact, I have no intention, Mr. Chairman, of taking up much time 
tonight, because we are not going to be voting on this bill tonight. We 
are going to be voting on Thursday, and on Thursday we are going to 
have to vote on a number of amendments that do not belong on this bill. 
If they are not added to this bill, then we are going to pass it 
virtually unanimously. But if they are added to this bill, then this is 
going to be a futile and very frustrating process, because not only 
will the Democrats in the House vote against the bill, but the 
President is going to veto it.
  So the principal message we want to leave with those Members who are 
listening tonight is that if they will stick to the appropriations that 
belong in this appropriations bill, then we are going to have 
unanimity, and all of our hard work, particularly under the leadership 
of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) will have been 
constructive. If we do not, it will have been for naught.
  The gentleman is absolutely correct in the priorities that he 
referred to. We agreed with the consensus budget. It was the city 
council's budget, the Mayor's budget, the control board's budget and 
our budget, and it was actually consistent with what the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairperson of the District's Authorizing 
Committee, wanted to see done.
  We went even beyond that, Mr. Chairman: $8.5 million for adoption 
incentives for children, a great idea; $20 million for the Mayor to be 
able to reform much of the bureaucracy in the District of Columbia, 
necessary, excellent addition. But another $13 million for expanded 
drug treatment programs, $17 million for the in-State tuition program 
for D.C. students; about $20 million for the offender supervision. 
Unbelievable that drug addicts can commit 300 to 500 crimes just to 
feed their drug habit. If we can get them off drugs, off drug 
addiction, then we can make an enormous dent in the crime rate in this 
city.
  So so far, we agree with everything that was added.
  However, when we get to the back of the bill, the sort of fine print, 
we realize there is 160, I think about 163 general provisions. We do 
not object to all of them, but some of them clearly do not belong in 
this appropriations bill.
  One can make an argument, I would have disagreed, but one could make 
a decent argument that until the D.C. revitalization act, too many 
Federal funds were being commingled with District funds. The Congress 
was appropriating 43 percent of the District's budget. The District was 
dependent upon the Congress, so the Congress had some justification for 
putting all kinds of these social riders imposing its wishes in a whole 
number of areas that had nothing to do with the appropriations bill on 
District residents.
  But the D.C. Revitalization Act was passed in 1997. Those functions 
that were State functions were taken over by the Federal Government. 
Those functions that exist in all of our cities and towns across the 
country that are funded by Federal grants are now funded by Federal 
grants in the District of Columbia, just the way we treat our own 
cities. It was the right thing to do.
  But because that was done, we are no longer commingling money. We are 
treating D.C. like any other city, and so we should certainly treat 
D.C. in the way that we would want our own congressional districts 
treated, and we would never, ever allow this body to add the kind of 
social riders that have been added on this bill that will be imposed on 
the District of Columbia's leaders without their wishes, without their 
acquiescence, and, in fact, despite their very strenuous opposition.
  Four such amendments were made in order by the Committee on Rules. 
They should not have made them in order. One is the needle exchange 
program. The bill says no Federal funds can be used for needle 
exchanges. The bill is right. That is as far as our jurisdiction goes. 
Leave it there. Do not allow this amendment that goes beyond Federal 
money and says, we cannot even be using private money or local property 
taxpayers' money to go into however they want to be spending it.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is we have an epidemic of AIDS in this city, 
and if the District feels that this is the best way to bring drug 
addicts into the system so they can treat them and so they can prevent 
HIV infection, which is the leading cause of death for adults between 
the ages of 25 and 44 in this city, then we ought to trust the 
District's judgment.
  In terms of the other amendment that is being suggested that we ought 
not be able to adopt unless one is a traditionally married couple or 
blood relatives, there are a whole lot of other living arrangements 
that consist of very fine people who want to do something about the 
more than 3,000 kids in need of adoption in this city. We have no 
business passing these kinds of laws.
  In terms of the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), 
who at one point prevented the District from being able to sum up the 
total of the referendum results on the medicinal use of marijuana, now 
he has changed this and put in clearly authorizing language that would 
say that one cannot use certain substances in the District without 
attaching penalties to it. That goes way beyond the jurisdiction of 
this committee, even beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
  Lastly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has an amendment 
we would be sympathetic with that says it is a criminal penalty for 
minors to possess tobacco, but we would not do it in our own 
jurisdictions against the will of our constituents, and it is something 
that should have been done by the Committee on the Judiciary. It is 
authorizing language. It has no business on this appropriations bill.
  Those are the issues we are going to be debating, arguing over on 
Thursday. There are others in addition to that that I will not go into 
at this time. What they are going to do is to leave a sour taste over 
this bill when it ought to be recognized as a very fine bill. If we had 
stuck to the appropriations in this bill, we could have worked 
together, we could have gotten at least one of our appropriation bills 
signed by the President, and that money could have been used for 
constructive purposes.
  So we will draw swords on Thursday and we agree to disagree tonight. 
But Mr. Chairman, it is a darn shame, and it goes back to the rule. The 
rule made in order at least four amendments that never should have been 
made in order.
  Mr. Chairman, I subsequently have two speakers who are going to speak 
for a short period of time, and hopefully, for the sake of the other 
Members we are going to wrap up general debate as soon as we can.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairman of the related authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding 
me this time.
  I have spent a lot of time on this city over the last 4 years as 
chairman of the authorizing committee, and I want to compliment the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the subcommittee, 
for the excellent approach that he has taken in reviewing the D.C. 
budget and bringing it to the floor in such good shape and in such a 
timely manner. I will address the substance of the amendments which I

[[Page H6554]]

think would have been made in order under an open rule, because the 
wording is ``no funds shall be expended,'' but we will discuss them in 
detail on Thursday when they come up, and I share some of the concerns 
of my colleagues on some of these.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill is right now in good shape. I want to 
compliment again the gentleman from Oklahoma. I think the gentleman and 
his staff have kept our staff well informed. They have worked 
cooperatively with us. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran), the ranking member, for working so closely on this too.
  The appropriations bill may be the lowest in dollar amounts, but 
historically it has generated an extraordinary amount of interest and 
passion when it comes to this body. While feelings on many of the 
questions are as strong as ever, the lack of acrimony expressed to date 
is a tribute to the chairman's skill in searching out to the community 
and analyzing the issues. I look forward to passage of this bill and a 
productive conference.
  Let me address some of the items that are contained in this bill. The 
$17 million for the D.C. College Access Act, which I sponsored and 
which has passed the House and I think will be marked up in the other 
body next week, is the best money we can spend on the city. It holds 
out hope to those high school graduates who work hard and want to go to 
college and fulfill their dreams, and they will not be frustrated just 
because they do not happen to live in a State and cannot afford in-
state tuition to a State university system.
  Senator Voinovich held a productive hearing on this bill a few weeks 
ago, and I look forward to working with him and Chairman Istook and my 
colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and others to authorizing this 
legislation in advance.
  Likewise, I appreciate the 7.5 million for a study of the 14th Street 
Bridge, a matter I worked on with my colleagues, the gentlemen from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) and (Mr. Wolf), for some period of time. This is 
also money well spent. I applaud the $25 million in the budget for drug 
treatment and testing and the $8.5 million to expand foster care, and I 
compliment the chairman on adding this to the legislation.
  The $5 million to help clean up the Anacostia River is much needed, 
and, of course, approval of the city's consensus for tax cuts will make 
the District a friendlier place to live and to work and to own and 
operate a business. The city needs a tax base. That is why we have 
taken such an interest in its revitalization. Last year, we passed 
legislation that permitted the new Washington Convention Center to be 
built downtown. Working in concert with the MCI Center, we are creating 
a synergy to enliven the downtown area, increase tax revenues, and 
create job opportunities for its residents.
  In the 5 years I have had the honor to serve as the chairman of the 
District's Authorizing Subcommittee, it has been my philosophy that one 
cannot have a healthy region without a healthy city. Working in a 
bipartisan manner, building consensus, I am proud of the way we are 
turning this city around. The budget that we are considering today 
continues these efforts. I think it is a step in the right direction, 
and again I compliment the gentleman from Oklahoma, and I hope this 
legislation will pass.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make an observation first. I agree with the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) with reference to the product of 
this committee. I think it is one of the most positive products in a 
D.C. bill that I have seen since I have been here.
  I also want to make an observation, as someone who is one of the 
senior members from the Washington regional delegation, that I think 
this delegation from the Washington metropolitan area is as positive a 
partner in working with our co-members of this region, the District of 
Columbia, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton).
  In particular, I would be remiss if I did not say once again what an 
extraordinary job the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) does on behalf of the District. She is attentive, able, 
energetic, tough as nails when she needs to be, and she is smart as she 
needs to be in terms of dealing with a very, very difficult situation.
  It continues to be, however, I think, a travesty that the 
representative of the District of Columbia does not have a full vote on 
this House floor. Even absent that vote, Mr. Chairman, she does an 
extraordinarily good job in representing the people of the District of 
Columbia. I congratulate her for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to just make a couple of comments. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) for, again, his 
work on this bill. I agree, of course, as he knows, with the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) about the Committee on Rules' actions, and 
with respect to a couple of other provisions in the bill as well that 
we will discuss tomorrow.
  Basically, this is a good bill. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) I think is absolutely correct. As an appropriation bill, that 
is, without the riders, without the extraneous matter, it is a bill 
that I think all of us could support.
  I also would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
adding report language in the full committee that deals with the fire 
service. I have been a longtime advocate of the interests of the fire 
service. We lost a very distinguished firefighter, John Carter, in 
1997. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I 
have been at the funeral of two of the firefighters in the District of 
Columbia that have died in the last 60 days.
  There was a report after Mr. Carter's death. That report made a 
number of recommendations. It was called the Reconstruction Committee. 
Two of the recommendations it made were dealing with assistance to 
battalion chiefs and the number of firefighters that were assigned to 
the trucks as they leave the station.
  I believe that matter deserves very serious consideration. I know the 
D.C. City Council has a concern. It is report language and not 
mandatory, but I am hopeful that we can work on this matter and focus 
on it in the months ahead.
  I again congratulate the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) for her outstanding work.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his 
outstanding cooperation for the Washington metropolitan region. He does 
a lot for the District of Columbia specifically.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the elected representative 
of the District of Columbia and our last speaker.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me, and take this opportunity to thank him for his wonderful 
attention and his hard work on behalf of the District.
  If I may, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for his very generous remarks concerning me.
  This year had promised to be far smoother for the D.C. appropriation 
than recent years. The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) 
himself, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the ranking 
members, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), and especially the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Chairman Istook)) worked hard to achieve consensus on the D.C. budget, 
and they succeeded beautifully. The District's consensus budget, 
containing only locally-raised revenue, also found consensus in 
committee.
  The D.C. budget is balanced and frugal, with prudent spending, a tax 
cut, and a surplus.
  How, then, can we now allow this thoroughly cooperative give-and-take 
process to be destroyed by its opposite, the authoritarian imposition 
of attachments, strongly and unanimously opposed by all the local 
officials, without

[[Page H6555]]

exception, who alone are accountable to the residents who live here?
  How, how can we allow inflammatory and undemocratically imposed 
attachments to overwhelm the excellent work the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Chairman Istook) has done on public safety in this bill, for example? 
He has crafted language which added Federal funds to require drug 
testing and treatment for 30,000 people on parole. I thank him.
  How can we take an excellent appropriation bill and bring it down 
with a veto that has been promised if we sully it with irrelevant 
appendages that are wholly disrespectful of local self-government? How 
can we repeat the performance of last year's pitiful D.C. 
appropriations debacle?
  Make no mistake, this appropriation is headed for a completely 
avoidable train wreck. After listing all the attachments before us, the 
administration's statement of policy says, and I am quoting, ``If such 
amendments are adopted and included in the bill presented to the 
president, the senior advisors will recommend that the President veto 
the bill.''
  Out of respect for the half million people I represent, the new 
reform mayor, and the revitalized city council, I ask for a clean 
appropriation. Members and I may well disagree with local law, but a 
vote to leave a local law standing is no vote in favor of that law. 
They did not make it, they cannot leave it standing. Rather, it is an 
exercise in the oldest of American Federalist exercises. It is a vote 
for democracy at the local level.
  Members jealously guard the local prerogatives of their districts. I 
demand no less respect for the people I represent. Please respect our 
rights as American citizens and vote against each and every one of the 
riders that will come before us on the District appropriation.
  I want to close, Mr. Chairman, by drawing to the Members' attention a 
recent article in the Washington Post that struck me with deep 
poignancy. It is headed, ``U.S. to Host Russians for a Look at 
Democracy.'' We are told that this body has appropriated $10 million in 
an emergency appropriation, no less, to bring Russians here to see how 
American democracy works.
  James Billington, the Librarian of Congress, said, and he is quoted 
in the article, that ``The U.S. Government is bringing `a genuinely 
large number of young Russians, the entire cohort of young leaders, 
especially from the provinces, to observe American life and democratic 
institutions.'''

  Mr. Chairman, I can only ask that for their sake and ours, we deny 
the Russians gallery passes to witness the D.C. appropriation on 
Thursday. We are told that bringing large numbers of Russians to the 
United States, according to Mr. Billington, and I am quoting him now, 
``Avoids the patronizing syndrome of sending Americans to Russia to 
tell the Russians how to run their lives.''
  Instead, Mr. Speaker, the Russians will see this House telling the 
residents of the District how to run their lives. It is not the 
Russians who will be patronized on Thursday if these amendments are 
offered, it is the people I represent.
  We are told that the first 3,000 Russian participants are scheduled 
to arrive July 28. Fate, how cruel. This is just in time to see the 
sorriest spectacle left against our stated democratic principles.
  Mr. Billington apparently wrote an op-ed piece for the New York 
Times, where he criticized, according to this article, criticized the 
United States for doing too little to support the development of 
democracy in Russia. Mr. Chairman, the criticism belongs with this 
House and on this bill. We are doing or will do, if we continue in the 
way we are going, too much to destroy democracy in the Nation's Capitol 
with the attachments to this bill.
  There is still time to show the Russians that democracy works, even 
in the Capitol of the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against all the anti-democratic amendments that will come to the House 
floor on Thursday. Do it not for the Russians, do it for the people I 
represent, and do it in the name of American democracy.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I hope, as the Russians come and witness 
this action, they will be reminded by all of us that we are a 
constitutional republic, and that the Constitution specifically allows 
us to delegate authority within the Federal district that was formed by 
that Constitution, but does not give us the right to delegate the 
responsibility for what happens in this District.
  Mr. Chairman, I am rather concerned when I hear my colleagues talk 
about that the President will veto this bill if any of these amendments 
go forward. I cannot believe that William Jefferson Clinton would veto 
this bill just because we said that children in Washington, D.C. should 
not be possessing or smoking tobacco.
  I just cannot believe the President would veto the bill just because 
we want to send a clear message that minors should not drink and should 
not smoke. I just cannot believe that this president would veto a bill 
just to make sure that Washington, D.C. is not a sanctuary for underage 
consumption of tobacco.
  Today in Virginia, the law that I am proposing this week is the same 
law that Virginia has. Maryland does not allow minor possession, 
Virginia does not allow it. Over 20 States do not allow it. I think 
that after trying to work with the administration and the city, they 
have been so busy reforming other things that were very, very important 
to them that they have not gotten around in the year to addressing this 
issue.
  I just ask that we do not say that this president would kill an 
entire bill just because this president thinks it is outrageous for 
Congress to say minors should not consume tobacco.

                              {time}  2130

  This is a resident issue, but it is also an American issue. We bring 
pages into this city. We bring our children into this city from all 
over the country. The message we send to our children and to our pages 
when we tell them do not go to Virginia and do not go to Maryland and 
smoke, but here in D.C., it is okay, I do not think anybody in Congress 
wants to take that responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the President will not veto this bill if 
we outlaw minor possession and use of tobacco in D.C. I am sure the 
President will support us in sending a clear message, not just to the 
children of D.C., but the children across this country that minor use 
of tobacco needs to stop and start here.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letters for the Record:


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1999.
     Hon. Anthony Williams,
     Mayor, District of Columbia, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mayor Williams: I would like to take this opportunity 
     to congratulate you on your recent election victory. As a 
     part-time resident of the District and as someone who spent 
     twenty years in local government, including two years as a 
     councilman and six years as a mayor, I wish you the best of 
     luck in your first term as Mayor of the District of Columbia.
       As you may already be aware, during the House of 
     Representatives Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 appropriation process I 
     introduced an amendment to the D.C. Appropriation Act (H.R. 
     4380) that prohibited individuals under the age of 18 years 
     of age from possessing and consuming tobacco products in the 
     District of Columbia. This amendment received strong 
     bipartisan support and passed through the House by a 238-138 
     vote on August 6, 1999, but unfortunately it was not included 
     in the final conference report.
       At the time I introduced this amendment only 21 states in 
     the nation had minor possession laws outlawing tobacco, and 
     my amendment would have added the District of Columbia to 
     this growing lists of states. My amendment was very straight 
     forward and easy to understand. It contained a provision to 
     exempt from this prohibition a minor individual ``making a 
     delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in his or her 
     employment'' while on the job.
       My amendment also contained a penalty section, which was 
     modeled after the state of Virginia's penalty section for 
     minors found in violation of tobacco possession. For the 
     first violation, the minor would, at the discretion of the 
     judge, be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $50. 
     For the second violation, the minor would be subject to a 
     civil penalty not to exceed $100. For a third or subsequent 
     violation, the minor would have his or her driver's license 
     suspended for a period of 90 consecutive days. The 90 day 
     suspension is consistent with penalties for minor possession 
     of alcohol in the District of Columbia. Any minor found to be 
     in possession of tobacco may also be required to perform 
     community service or attend a tobacco cessation program. Each 
     of these penalties are at the judge's discretion.
       I understand that the District of Columbia already has 
     tough laws on the books to address the issue of sales of 
     tobacco to minors.

[[Page H6556]]

     My amendment focused specifically on the possession of 
     tobacco products by minors in order to put minor possession 
     of tobacco with minor possession of alcohol. All three cities 
     in my district have passed anti-possession laws, so that I am 
     not asking the District to do anything my own communities 
     have not already done.
       I was an original cosponsor of the strongest anti-tobacco 
     bill in the 105th Congress, the Bipartisan NO Tobacco for 
     Kids Act (H.R. 3638). The intentions of my amendment was to 
     encourage youth to take responsibility for their actions. If 
     individuals under the age of 18 know they will face a penalty 
     for possession of tobacco, they might be deterred from ever 
     starting to smoke in the first place.
       As we move forward in the 106th Congress I would like to 
     know whether you plan to address this issue at the local 
     level. I think it is important that all levels of government 
     work together to help stop children from smoking. I also 
     believe we should send the right message to our children, and 
     the first step in this process would be for the District of 
     Columbia to join Virginia, Maryland, and the twenty other 
     states who have passed youth possession and consumption laws. 
     I would appreciate knowing of your intentions, and to work 
     with you and Members on both sides of the aisle in 1999 to 
     make sure this important piece of legislation becomes law.
       Again, congratulations on your new position as Mayor and I 
     look forward to working with you in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Brian P. Bilbray,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                                     May 21, 1999.
     Hon. Brian Bilbray,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Bilbray: Thank you for your letter sharing 
     your concern about teenage smoking in the District and your 
     congratulations on my November election to the Office of 
     Mayor.
       In response to your inquiry, the District of Columbia is 
     addressing the issue of teen smoking through a variety of 
     methods. DC Public Schools has two programs--The Great 
     American Smoke-out and ``2 Smart 2 Smoke''--to raise 
     children's awareness of the dangers of smoking. Additionally, 
     the Department of Health supports the efforts of local and 
     community-based initiatives like ``Ad-Up, Word-Up and Speak-
     Out,'' which encourages school age children to perform their 
     own research on the effects of advertising directed at 
     children.
       Finally, the school system recently elevated possession of 
     tobacco to a ``level one'' infraction--which means violators 
     could incur the severe disciplinary measures, including 
     possible suspension. To assess our progress, the District is 
     tracking youth smoking related data through grants provided 
     by the Center for Disease Control.
       I want to assure you that I share your concerns about 
     teenage smokers. Sandra Allen, Chairperson of the City 
     Council's Committee on Human Services, and I are working 
     diligently to strengthen enforcement which should, in 
     combination with the other initiatives, result in a real 
     reduction of teenage smoking. We believe that the cumulative 
     effect of these initiatives will have a marked improvement on 
     the incidence of teen smoking.
       Again thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront of 
     my attention. I agree that discouraging our youth from 
     engaging in this terrible habit of smoking is very important 
     in the fight to curtail tobacco's tragic and inevitable long-
     term effects.
           Sincerely,
                                              Anthony A. Williams,
     Mayor, District of Columbia.
                                  ____



                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 1999.
     Hon. Anthony Williams,
     Mayor, District of Columbia,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mayor Williams: I would like to thank you for your 
     response to my letter regarding my youth consumption 
     amendment and the tobacco strategies in the District of 
     Columbia. I appreciate the information you provided regarding 
     the programs the D.C. public schools are implementing to 
     combat youth smoking.
       As I mentioned in my first letter, in the 105th Congress I 
     introduced an amendment to H.R. 4380, FY 1999 District of 
     Columbia appropriations bill that sought to prohibit 
     individuals under the age of 18 years from possessing and 
     consuming tobacco products in the District of Columbia. This 
     amendment received strong bipartisan support and passed 
     through the House by a 238-138 vote on August 6, 1999.
       I intend to reintroduce this amendment to the FY 2000 D.C. 
     Appropriations Bill later in the year when Congress takes up 
     this legislation. I believe at the same time we are educating 
     youths on the dangers of tobacco and curtailing 
     advertisements by the tobacco industry, we need to strive for 
     new and innovative ways to reduce tobacco use along with 
     sending a clear message to our youth that we will not 
     tolerate the consumption of tobacco. This is what a youth 
     consumption law in the District will accomplish.
       My amendment contains a penalty section, which is modeled 
     after the state of Virginia's penalty section for minors 
     found in violation of tobacco possession. For the first 
     violation, the minor would, at the discretion of the judge, 
     be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50. For the 
     second violation, the minor would be subject to a civil 
     penalty not to exceed $100. For a third or subsequent 
     violation, the minor would have his or her driver's license 
     suspended for a period of 90 consecutive days. The 90 day 
     suspension is consistent with penalties for minor possession 
     of alcohol in the District of Columbia. Any minor found to be 
     in possession of tobacco may also be required to perform 
     community service or attend a tobacco cessation program. Each 
     of these penalties are at the judge's discretion (I have 
     attached a draft of my amendment for your convenience).
       My amendment focuses specifically on the possession of 
     tobacco products by minors in order to put minor possession 
     of tobacco with minor possession of alcohol. If we are really 
     serious about reducing youth consumption of tobacco we need 
     to put it on the same level as alcohol and treat it equally.
       Again, thank you for responding to my original letter and I 
     look forward to working with you on this important issue. 
     Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Brian P. Bilbray,
                                               Member of Congress.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Guests of the House in the gallery are not allowed to 
demonstrate their support or opposition to anything that happens on the 
House floor.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I only have my closing comments. I do not 
know if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) desired to take any 
further time or not.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Would the Sergeant at Arms remove the people from the 
gallery?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that we are prepared to conclude.
  So if the gentleman from Oklahoma is prepared, the gentleman can 
conclude, and we will renew this debate on Thursday.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the articulate comments of the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). I especially 
appreciate the passion with which she represents her community.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of comments that were 
raised by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) because I think 
they are worthy of considered response.
  I realize that we are going to have certain votes when amendments are 
offered to this bill on Thursday. As we do in elections, so, too, here 
in the House of Representatives, we accept the results of votes. We 
have those votes. We handle our differences. But we do not let the 
things upon which we differ keep us from uniting to accomplish the 
things that we agree are good. I think that is important in this.
  There may be certain senior advisors of the President who recommends 
to him that he veto a bill over just one issue. I personally doubt that 
he would over one or even two. I think that needs to be explored 
briefly.
  I had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to serve in local government as 
a city council member in my community, a library board member over a 
consolidated county system, and a library chairman, and as a member of 
the State legislature in Oklahoma. Frequently, especially in the 
legislature, I found that, as a member of the Oklahoma legislature, we 
not only established the public policy for State government, but we 
established public policy for the communities within the State of 
Oklahoma.
  That is true in every State, Mr. Chairman, because cities, counties, 
villages, townships, parishes, these are established by State 
government. State government gives them the parameters within which 
they may function.
  It is not uncommon in State government to have issues come up that 
say, this governs not only how the State itself is going to operate, 
but also how the political subdivisions within the State are going to 
be able to operate, what they can do, or what they cannot do.
  Washington DC, of course, is a very different situation. It is not a 
State that has a State government. It is a

[[Page H6557]]

Federal district that has one city. It is established by the Federal 
Constitution.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. 
I accept the gentleman's great American analogy, federalist analogy. 
But as the gentleman himself served in local government, he will, I 
think, recognize that, at the local level, there was voting 
representation so that there had been agreement to live by majority 
vote. Because even at the lowest local level, there was voting 
representation.
  The gentleman recognizes that I have no vote in this body, and what 
vote I did have was taken from me. I just want to indicate that I 
would, in fact, agree if, in fact, this State analogy were fully 
perfect.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlewoman's concerns, 
and I appreciate them. As I said before, I appreciate the great passion 
that she brings to her representation of D.C. I recognize the concerns 
that she has over the fact that she is not a voting Member on the floor 
of this body. I realize her argument. I do not think that undercuts the 
principle of whether or not the Congress of the United States has 
responsibilities and authority, even though it is not popular with 
everyone that we do so.
  Because just as the State constitutions create cities and counties 
and other political subdivisions, the United States Constitution 
created one special entity called the District of Columbia to be the 
seat of government for the Nation's Capitol.
  Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress 
shall have sole legislative authority over this District. We have 
delegated through home rule, but, nevertheless, the Constitution 
established a unique situation. Certainly, of course, the city has the 
Federal Government here, and it, frankly, has an assurance that this 
Federal Government is going to be here and will always enjoy the 
benefits as well as the things which are not benefits of being the seat 
of the Nation's Government.
  But we are given a responsibility over public policy within the 
District of Columbia, and that makes it a very difficult issue, because 
it brings forth the feelings and the passions such as the gentlewoman 
is expressing, and others are, too.
  But what we are considering in the bill with the amendments that 
different Members intend to offer on Thursday to this bill is not 
unique. I think it is very important to note, if my colleagues look at 
the amendments that the Committee on Rules chose to place in order for 
Thursday, we have the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), which states that adoptions should, if they are 
by multiple persons, should be by persons who are related by blood or 
by marriage. That is an amendment which was adopted by this House of 
Representatives a year ago. The vote was 227 to 192. It is not 
something new that has been brought to bear in this bill.
  The amendment that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) 
intends to offer regarding minors and tobacco is not new. It is 
virtually the same as the amendment which was considered by this House 
and passed last year by a vote of 283 to 138.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) intends to 
offer is somewhat different from the one last year. Last year, it was 
adopted by a voice vote. There was not even a recorded vote requested. 
It was adopted by a voice vote. It would have prohibited the District 
from counting the results of the initiative and the election that was 
conducted regarding medical use of marijuana.
  But it is important to note that that provision was not only adopted 
by the House of Representatives, it was also approved by the United 
States Senate, and it was signed into law by the President of the 
United States.
  This year, the amendment which the Committee on Rules made in order 
for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) does not go that far. It 
simply states that the District shall not legalize a drug that is a 
restricted drug under schedule I of the Federal Controlled Substances 
Act.
  The amendment that causes some controversy that the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) intends to offer on the floor this Thursday, which 
states that no public money may be used within the District for a 
program of needle exchange regarding illegal drug usage, that is not a 
new provision. That was adopted last year by the House of 
Representatives on a vote of 250 to 169. It was approved by the United 
States Senate. It was signed into law by the President of the United 
States.
  Maybe this year the President's advisors want him to change his mind 
and say he should veto it if that provision remains there. But the case 
remains that that is a provision that was approved by the House, the 
Senate, and the President a year ago.
  The language which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has in the 
bill in place of the Tiahrt language to say that the limitation is on 
the use of Federal funds, but not a limitation on local funds within 
the District, is an amendment which was disapproved last year by the 
House on a vote of 173 to 247.
  These are not new issues that have been brought up. In fact, I have 
encouraged my fellow Members not to bring up new issues to tack on to 
this particular bill. But I have recognized that positions have been 
taken by the House, by the Senate, by the President, acting in concert, 
and that those remain issues that have previously been considered 
appropriate for this body; and, therefore, we have the votes on 
Thursday on those issues again.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the Record that the 
President never specifically signed the D.C. appropriation last year. 
It was the year of the great appropriation debacle.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, it was within an omnibus appropriation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, it was within an omnibus bill. The 
President's agents sought to get each and every one of those amendments 
off, did get the adoption amendment off, for example, but was not able 
in the course of negotiations to get all of the amendments off.
  So the President is not being inconsistent when he says he will veto 
this year.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Well, as I said correctly, Mr. Chairman, the President 
signed that provision into law last year. Yes, it was in a bill that 
had many other things within it, but it was signed into law by the 
President, the very provision that his advisors now say that they would 
recommend he veto if that provision remained within the bill.
  We all know there is a great difference between what an advisor may 
counsel, what a member of one of the staff that works for us on Capitol 
Hill, what they may counsel, and what we may deem that we should do or 
choose to do. I think we have to have perspective.
  We have not brought up new issues within this bill. We have the 
continuation of the issues that have already been brought before this 
body, and this body has previously determined that they were 
appropriate to consider.
  Those are still live issues. These include issues that were signed 
into law by the President a year ago. I think it is appropriate for us 
to consider something that the President did agree to sign into law a 
year ago.
  We will have those debates Thursday. I will abide by the results. I 
expect that other Members of this body will abide by those results. I 
just want to put those in perspective, Mr. Chairman.
  But I do not want to lose track of the positive things that we have 
worked together to do in this bill. After we have those votes on the 
disagreements, I expect that we can and will and should unite to 
promote those things that we have put in this bill to make the District 
of Columbia a better, safer, more prosperous place to live, to work, 
and to visit.
  I think that is a worthwhile goal for the capital city of the United 
States of America. I hope that every Member of this body will join me 
in that commitment, regardless of our differences on different votes, 
unite together and approve this bill for the common good of

[[Page H6558]]

the capital of the United States of America.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate my 
colleagues, Chairman Istook and Ranking Member Moran, on a fine bill 
that they have put together.
  Though I disagree with certain portions of it--specifically those 
prohibiting the use of local funds for abortion and the local domestic 
partner law--I believe the bill is generally even handed.
  There is one issue I wish to raise, however, that is not addressed in 
this bill and has never, to my knowledge been raised before: pit bulls.
  the recent death of a veteran firefighter on the DC fire squad 
because of a pit bull attack during a fire run is only the latest of 
tragedies associated with vicious pit bull attacks.
  I am an animal lover and for the most part will give animals the 
benefit of the doubt for their right to share this planet with us. I 
abhor animal cruelty and am grateful for the support I received from 
this House in passing a partial ban on steel-jaw leghold just traps two 
weeks ago.
  But this city has a problem with maintaining proper control over pit 
bulls and Firefighter Robinson was only the most recent addition to a 
sad list of statistics.
  According to Mary Healy, Executive Director of the Washington Humane 
Society, over \1/3\ of all the animals that come into their animal 
shelters every year is a pit bull. Just think of it: of all the breeds 
of all the dogs out there, one breed overwhelmingly dominates like no 
other. These dogs are turned in or found or captured because they are 
not suitable as pets. It is the nature of this beast to be other-animal 
aggressive which leads to unprovoked attacks on other dogs and by 
proximity, on people. As such they pose a public health and safety 
threat and for this reason the Humane Society supports full ban on pit 
bulls.
  Originally I had considered offering an amendment to this bill 
specifically calling on the DC Council to do something about this 
problem. I will refrain from doing so only because I have learned that 
the DC Council is moving in the right direction on this issue due to 
the leadership of Councilmember Carol Schwartz. Ms. Schwartz in March 
introduced strong legislation that would put sensible restrictions on 
pit bull ownership in the District. I applaud her vision and dedication 
to solving this troublesome aspect of life in DC. I understand from 
Councilmember Schwartz that she has been guaranteed a hearing in 
October by Sandy Allen, Councilmember from War 8 and Chairperson of the 
Council Committee on Human Services. I fully hope to see the Council 
enact Ms. Schwartz's legislation on an emergency basis and work toward 
a more permanent solution--maybe even an out-and-out ban like that 
enacted in Prince Georges County, Maryland--within the next several 
months.
  We can't wait for the next headline to tell us of the next tragedy of 
a person hurt or maimed or even killed by these vicious dogs. 
Firefighter Robinson gave his life; Councilmember Schwartz has the 
answer. Congress should honor the memory of fireman Robinson by during 
the Council to pass Ms. Schwartz's bill . . . and if the Council won't 
act then I will see that Congress does.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to comment on the District of 
Columbia Appropriations legislation. I commend the subcommittee, its 
Chairman [Mr. Istook] and the full committee for their work on this 
important legislation.
  As someone with a strong interest in reducing substance abuse through 
demand reduction--and as co-chairman of the Speaker's Working Group for 
a Drug-Free America--I'd like to comment on a provision of this 
legislation that is of particular interest to the drug prevention and 
education community.


                drug testing for prisoners and parolees

  I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma for including funding in this 
program for universal drug testing and screening of incarcerated 
prisoners and parolees. Today, 80% of incarcerated prisoners in this 
nation were either under the influence or drugs or alcohol, were 
regular drug users or violated drug and alcohol laws at the time they 
committed their crimes. Remarkably, in 1996, more than 1.5 million were 
arrested for substance abuse-related offenses. Worse yet, those who go 
to prison without effective treatment for their addiction tend to wind 
up back in the criminal justice system in the future.
  Substance abuse contributes to many of our worst social ills--
violence, child and spousal abuse, robbery, theft and vandalism. As a 
result, our judicial system is overwhelmed with substance abusers. You 
would think, when a criminal is locked up for a drug-related offense, 
the prison itself would be a drug-free environment and the prisoner 
would be forced to get drug treatment.
  But our prisons are often bastions of drug abuse. Only 13% of 
prisoners receive any sort of treatment for their drug problem at all 
and many of those treatment programs are considered inadequate.
  Unfortunately, the drug habits of thousands of these individuals 
continue and sometimes worsen in prison. So it's no surprise that, 
according to statistics from the National Center on Addiction and 
Substance Abuse, 50% of state parole and probation violators were under 
the influence of drugs, alcohol or both when they committed their new 
offense. In other words, these individuals continue to be a menace to 
society because their drug problems are not addressed behind bars.
  There are a number of steps we can take to stop the revolving door of 
incarceration, parole and re-arrest--including the successful drug 
courts at the local level that use the threat of prison to get people 
to address their drug habits through treatment. At the national level, 
a recent Federal Bureau of Prisons study showed that inmates who 
receive treatment are 73% less likely to be re-arrested than untreated 
inmates.
  That's why I introduced the Drug-Free Prisons and Jails Act last 
year, which established a model program for comprehensive substance 
abuse treatment in the criminal justice system to reduce drug abuse, 
drug-related crime and the costs associated with incarceration.
  And that's why I'm pleased to support the drug testing program in 
this legislation before us today. By identifying criminals and parolees 
in the District of Columbia with drug addiction problems, we will help 
to reduce crime in our nation's capital--and we will stop the costly 
revolving door of drug addiction and incarceration in the DC prison 
system.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hill of Montana) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2587) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against 
revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2000, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________