[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 139 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10083-H10090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3064, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 330

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3064) 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. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 330 is a closed rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3064, the D.C. appropriation bill for fiscal year 
2000. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations. Additionally, the rule waives all points of order 
against the bill. House Resolution 330 also provides for one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority 
of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 330 is a closed rule recognizing the 
full and fair debate that the House had on similar legislation on July 
27, 1999. This rule will assist the House to move forward in the 
appropriations process.
  I regret that it is necessary to bring another appropriations measure 
to the floor to fund the District of Columbia. As my colleagues know, 
Congress sent a bill to President Clinton on September 16 of this year 
that funded the District government at levels above those requested by 
the President and with almost no changes from the bill he signed a year 
earlier. Unfortunately, the President used this bill to send an early 
message to Congress and the American people he would be playing 
politics with the budget again this year.
  The precursor to the underlying legislation, H.R. 2587, appropriated 
the total of $429 million in Federal funding support for the District, 
35 million above the President's request. The bill sent 6.8 billion in 
District funds back to the people of Washington, $40 million more than 
was requested by the President. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, this was not 
enough.
  I was very disappointed when the President vetoed the District 
funding bill, but I was most surprised by the issue cited by the 
President in his veto message. The President chose to put a bizarre 
agenda of free needles and legalized drugs over the interests of the 
citizens of Washington, D.C. He vetoed it because it would not allow 
the District to distribute needles to drug addicts or legalize 
marijuana.
  The President's intent to allow the District to use Federal dollars 
to fund needle exchanges is only the latest time he has been on the 
wrong side of this issue. Last year Secretary Shalala indicated the 
Clinton administration would lift the ban on Federal funding, but when 
the drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, denounced the move saying it would 
sanction drug use, the White House upheld the Federal ban but continues 
to trumpet the effectiveness of needle exchange programs. This clever 
triangulation technique saved him from a political debacle; but it 
exposed his true convictions on this issue.
  What kind of message do we send to our kids when our government tells 
them not to do drugs, but then supplies them with needles? As noted by 
the Heritage Foundation's Joe Loconte, quote, ``The Clinton 
administration has tacitly embraced a profoundly misguided notion that 
we must not confront drug abusers on moral grounds. Instead we should 
use medical interventions to minimize the harm and the behavior it 
invites,'' close quotes.
  Such a policy ignores that drug addiction is an illness of the soul 
as much as the body. We, as a Nation, have a responsibility to set 
moral and legal standards that demand responsible behavior and enabling 
drug users to engage in illegal behavior does nothing to end their 
tragic addiction or stop the spread of drugs in America.
  Another reason President Clinton vetoed this bill is because he 
believes the District residents should be allowed to legalize 
marijuana. Not only does the President want D.C. residents to be able 
to use marijuana, but he also wants them to be able to grow it for 
their friends. Once again his own drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, 
has said that, quote, ``Smoked marijuana is not medicine. It has no 
curative impact at all,'' close quotes.
  In fact, the drug czar advises against using marijuana for medical 
purposes, exactly the language used in the D.C. referendum. Still, the 
President vetoed the D.C. appropriations bill over this issue. This 
completely undercuts the consistent and responsible ``Just Say No'' 
message by General McCaffrey and Congress who are working to keep 
illegal drugs out of our schools and off our streets.
  Over the last several months Congress and the President have been 
debating over the best way to spend the American people's hard-earned 
tax dollars. We have talked about education, Social Security, and our 
national defense. We have a lot of differences on these issues, but 
this is something I had hoped that we could agree on. Spending taxpayer 
dollars to fuel the habit of drug addicts is not only irresponsible, it 
is wrong.
  There was a time when the President agreed that these provisions made

[[Page H10084]]

sense. That time was 1 year ago when the President signed into law a 
District appropriations bill that contained the same responsible 
restrictions on Federal funds. This year, though, President Clinton has 
changed his tune and set aside the war on drugs for a war in Congress. 
I doubt the American people would consider this move a valuable use of 
public funds.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side are going to use today's rule 
as an opportunity to harass this Congress and its leadership, but the 
real lack of leadership here is in the White House. When thousands of 
police officers work the streets every day to rid our Nation of drugs, 
they should at least be able to expect that the chief law enforcement 
officer in the land supports them and the laws that they protect. 
Congress has worked with the President on some of the objections he 
raised to the bill, but this Congress will not be moved from its 
conviction that legalized drugs and enabling drug users sends all the 
wrong messages to our young people as they wrestle with these issues in 
our communities back home.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his 
admirable work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this fair rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is going to spend a lot of time 
today talking about marijuana and needles and drug addicts. I want to 
make it very clear that I am not in favor of the legalization of 
marijuana or needle exchange or doing anything that will further the 
use of illegal drugs in the District of Columbia or anywhere else in 
this country. But, Mr. Speaker, I also want my Republican colleagues to 
understand why many Democrats are going to oppose this rule and oppose 
this bill. We are going to oppose the bill and the rule because the 
Republican majority does not want to talk about anything else except 
what they want to talk about. No one else can get a word in edge-wise. 
We are going to oppose the bill because the Republican majority refuses 
to sit at the table with the administration, with the delegate from the 
District of Columbia, or with the Democratic members of the Committee 
on Appropriations to negotiate on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we are now way beyond any one rider in this bill. The 
administration, the District, and the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) have all indicated that they are willing to be 
flexible on these issues. We oppose this rule and this bill because the 
Republican majority has closed the process and will not even give the 
people of the District of Columbia the simple courtesy of listening to 
their concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in recent weeks to point out to my 
Republican colleagues that it seems they support local control only 
when it suits their purpose. Round two of the District of Columbia 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000 is another case in point. This bill 
is no improvement over the last because the Republican majority seems 
intent on adopting an attitude of Father Knows Best. Following the 
President's veto of the first D.C. appropriations bill, the Republican 
majority refused to sit down and talk about what should be done to move 
this bill. Instead, the Republican majority has chosen to use the D.C. 
appropriations bill as a political paint brush in an attempt to 
unfairly paint the administration and congressional Democrats as being 
soft on drugs.
  I want to reiterate that I am not endorsing the legalization of 
marijuana or making needles available to IV drug users. No, Mr. 
Speaker, I am endorsing the idea of allowing the District the right 
that every other jurisdiction in this country now enjoys, the right of 
self-determination. The Republican majority has denied over a half 
million people that right by refusing to engage in any discussion about 
how best to settle this matter. As a consequence, I will join the 
delegate from the District of Columbia in opposing this bill.
  To add insult to injury, the Republican majority is bringing this 
bill to the floor under a completely closed rule. I think it is a 
forgone conclusion what the outcome of any vote on any of these issues 
might be. But the fact that the Republican majority does not want to 
give the delegate this opportunity to represent her constituents is 
really unconscionable.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At this time I would like to point out to my friend from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) that making this administration look bad on drug policies is the 
easiest thing we can do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations' Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding time.
  I think it is important to note that the reason we will discuss 
certain issues today is not because I, as author of the bill and 
chairman of the subcommittee, it is not because I have selected some 
issues to talk about. The reasons we will talk about certain issues 
today, the reason is that the President of the United States, William 
Jefferson Clinton, sent to this Congress a veto of the bill that we 
sent him to fund the District of Columbia; and the President of the 
United States selected seven reasons in his veto message that he wrote 
to Congress, that William Jefferson Clinton said are the reasons he 
vetoed the bill and that people on the other side of the aisle have 
accepted as their reasons for opposing it.
  Now, contrary to what the gentleman has represented, I know 
personally because I am the one involved, that we have sought endlessly 
to talk with the Members on the other side of the aisle, with the 
delegate from the District of Columbia. I have talked personally with 
the President's representative, Mr. Jack Lew of the Office of 
Management and Budget; I have offered to sit down with him whenever he 
was willing to do so. They do not respond, and I will not yield, not at 
this time. We have offered. They just want to say, ``Oh, the District 
of Columbia ought to be free to make up its own mind if marijuana is 
going to be legal here.''

                              {time}  1515

  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we can save $16 billion a year 
of taxpayers' money if the President and my friends on the other side 
of the aisle want to go ahead and surrender in the national war against 
drugs, because that is how much we are spending. And if we say that any 
part of the country can declare itself a safe haven, a safe haven for 
marijuana or any other drug, then the result is going to be we no 
longer have a national policy against drugs, we no longer have a 
national law, so why are we spending this $16 billion a year.
  I did not pick this fight. The President, the President vetoed the 
bill for this reason. The delegate for the District of Columbia took 
the House floor and in conversations has said, oh, let us make up our 
own minds whether we are going to honor and obey the drug laws that 
cover the rest of the country. I read an editorial in the paper today 
that said, the new phrase is probably going to be that D.C. stands for 
Drug Capital, because of the people that will want to flock here. And 
for people to use the pretense, the pretense that oh, this is about 
local control, this is about people able to make their own decisions, 
is such a red herring. If we want a Federal law, if it is important to 
have a Federal law on issues, then make it uniform and national. If 
not, it is no good.
  Mr. Speaker, I am reading from the President's veto statement that he 
sent to this Congress when he vetoed the bill. I am quoting his own 
words: ``Congress has interfered in local decisions in this bill in a 
way that it would not have done to any other local jurisdiction in the 
country,'' which, Mr. Speaker, is frankly absurd, because the drug laws 
cover every city in the country. He went on: ``The bill would prohibit 
the District from legislating with respect to certain controlled 
substances. Of course, he means marijuana.'' That is all the bill 
talked about. It says the District of Columbia has to follow the same 
drug laws as the rest of the country, and he objects to that. The 
President wrote this. He went on to say, ``Congress should not impose 
such conditions on the District of Columbia.''

[[Page H10085]]

  Mr. Speaker, if he does not want a national law to combat the 
terrible scourge and plague of drugs, that is his position; he is 
entitled to it; and I am entitled to object.
  Let me read what the police chief of Washington, D.C. has submitted 
publicly about this whole effort. This is a statement that was put out 
by the police chief of Washington, D.C. a year ago when this issue 
arose, when they had this ballot initiative. I quote Chief Charles 
Ramsey: ``Legalized marijuana under the guise of medicine is a surefire 
prescription for more marijuana on the streets of D.C., more 
trafficking and abuse, and more drug-related crime and violence in our 
neighborhoods. This measure would provide adequate cover in the name of 
medicine for offenders whose real purpose is to manufacture, 
distribute, and abuse marijuana,'' end of quote. These efforts are 
going on around the country.
  The Clinton administration sent its drug policy people here to 
Capitol Hill to testify long before this bill ever came up, and it was 
the testimony from the Clinton White House's Drug Czar, General Barry 
McCaffrey, testimony to this Congress, quote: ``Medical marijuana 
initiatives present even greater risks to our young people. Referenda 
that tell our children that marijuana is a medicine sends them the 
wrong signal about the dangers of illegal drugs, increasing the 
likelihood that more children will turn to drugs. Permitting the 
medical use of smoked marijuana,'' and he put medical in quotes, ``will 
send a false and powerful message to our adolescents that marijuana use 
is beneficial. If pot is medicine, teenagers, rightfully, will reason, 
how can it hurt you? We can ill afford to send our children a mixed-up 
message on marijuana.''
  Testimony to this Congress from the White House's own Drug Czar, now 
contradicted by the President.
  And then the Drug Enforcement Agency, part of the Clinton 
administration's Justice Department, in testimony just this summer to 
this Congress, told us, and I quote again: ``Medical marijuana is 
merely the first tactical maneuver in an overall strategy that will 
lead to the eventual legalization of all drugs,'' end of quote. That is 
the Clinton administration's own Justice Department.
  But now they say, under a pretext, a pretense of local control, let 
us say it is okay for Washington, D.C., under flimsy guidelines to 
legalize marijuana.
  We have had testimony from the Clinton administration's own antidrug 
people that we pay through our tax money confirming that smoking 
marijuana is never medically indicated. It is not necessary to relieve 
any suffering or health problems. And the Justice Department testified 
to us that these so-called medical marijuana initiatives are draining 
their resources, robbing them of time and money and resources, to fight 
the drug problems, because they have to deal with these spurious 
attempts to override national drug laws with these local initiatives. 
That is the administration's point.
  This bill expressly, expressly disproves the effort that was put on 
the ballot in Washington, D.C. to legalize marijuana in the Nation's 
Capital. If one votes against the bill, one is voting that it is okay 
to have drugs legalized in Washington, D.C. I do not care how much one 
claims to the contrary, I do not care how many smoke screens one throws 
up to us, that is the issue. Hide behind whatever one thinks is big 
enough to hide behind. But the issue is, are we against drugs? Are we 
trying to combat drugs before they get ahold of our kids, or are we 
declaring a truce and a surrender in the war against drugs? We are 
going to yield back this country one city at a time, one State at a 
time; go ahead and legalize it here, undercut all the drug laws, we do 
not care. I do not care what argument one throws up against it. That is 
the issue.
  The President of the United States picked the issue by vetoing this 
bill and sending the veto message that he did, and no one can escape 
that.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.
  To the gentleman from Oklahoma, what I would like to suggest, 
notwithstanding all of the rhetoric that the gentleman just shared with 
us, is that if the gentleman would agree to add one word and drop one 
provision that has nothing to do with drugs, then we would accept this 
bill, this bill gets signed, and this whole discussion is moot. It will 
be done. We cannot tell the President what to do, but from this side; 
not that we would want to disagree with the gentleman's premise, but 
the reality is that if the gentleman would simply let the District of 
Columbia use its own funds to review the court cases that are currently 
involved so that the D.C. Corporation Council can advise the D.C. City 
Council on what cases are currently pending in court, then we could 
accept this. That is all we are asking.
  We are not fighting on this drug issue. We may disagree; we may feel 
that D.C. has the right to determine what is in its own interests. We 
may feel that it is appropriate to allow private funds to be used for 
legal purposes. But we also recognize we have a responsibility for the 
District of Columbia government to be able to function; and the fact 
is, this is a decent appropriations bill if it were not for all of 
these ideological riders.
  The gentleman will recall that in the full Committee on 
Appropriations, we got some compromises. We did not ask for a lot. We 
got a compromise where the majority of the committee, bipartisan, 
agreed we will just put in with the use of public funds for any needle 
program. Forget the fact that it is used so that they can provide drug 
treatment and counseling and so on. Go ahead and ban the use of public 
funds, but do not try, through a Federal appropriations bill, to say 
private people cannot contribute money for private purposes. It is a 
nonprofit private organization. That is all we asked.
  So there was a compromise, and we went to this floor in a spirit of 
compromise. And if the gentleman will recall, that bill passed 
overwhelmingly. It was a good appropriations bill. It was a right thing 
for the District of Columbia. We go into conference and there is 
virtually nothing that happens. We lose that spirit of compromise.
  Now we are here on the floor. I would not want to suggest that the 
only reason we are here is so that we can make some charges against the 
Clinton administration and the Democrats, charges that are clearly 
unfounded, charges that are clearly not right. In fact, the Clinton 
administration came out strongly against the medicinal use of marijuana 
even, came out strongly against any of the programs that the gentleman 
is suggesting. The gentleman has already quoted Clinton administration 
officials, but what they want to preserve is the right of the citizens 
of the District of Columbia to run their own affairs. That is the issue 
here.
  All that the gentleman would have to do is to add one word, and that 
is ``Federal,'' simply add that with regard to voting rights. That is 
all that we are talking about. And then, D.C. City Council can use 
public money, local, tax revenue so that its D.C. Corporation Council 
can advise it on bills that directly affect the D.C. government that 
are in the court.
  Right now, the gentleman says D.C. government cannot use its own 
local funds to even advise the D.C. council on the status of the voting 
rights legislation. That is not fair. Prohibit Federal funds; do not 
prohibit D.C. local funds. Make that adjustment; we will find a way to 
get this bill over to the President's desk; and we will recommend 
signature. And we will have fulfilled our responsibility.
  So for all of the protestations, for all of the rhetoric, here we 
have a negotiation. It is a reasonable offer. It has nothing to do with 
drugs, nothing to do with the social riders that the gentleman has been 
talking about. Accept it, we will move forward. We will fight these 
other issues maybe in another year, or on another appropriations bill, 
but let us do the right thing by the D.C. government, by the D.C. 
citizens. Let us keep this out of some omnibus bill where they lose 
control of the ultimate fate of this bill. It is a small bill. Let us 
do the right thing on this.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time.

[[Page H10086]]

  This is new, it has not been discussed before, and I would suggest 
that the gentleman from Virginia get together with the chairman of the 
committee, because this is not what we are hearing from the 
administration. The administration is saying we have some real problems 
with local control. We want them to go ahead and put in the provisions 
to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
  So I think we ought to just look at the provisions that the President 
is supporting, because I have with me the legislative text for the 
medical marijuana provisions and it says some very interesting things. 
It says, medical patients who use and their primary caregivers who use 
marijuana can avoid any of the District of Columbia drug laws; and they 
can designate who their primary caregivers are.
  Let us just see, who are these primary caregivers that can completely 
avoid the drug laws that we have here in America. They can designate, 
and by the way, this is based on a recommendation from a physician 
which can be oral, it does not have to be in writing, it can be oral. 
This is the oral recommendation that one can use medical marijuana, and 
then one can designate this primary caregiver. A medical patient may 
designate or appoint a licensed health care practitioner, sibling, so 
one could have their brother be the primary caregiver; a child, someone 
below the age of 18, a child can be the primary caregiver; or other 
relative, domestic partner, case management worker or best friend; they 
can be your primary caregiver, and this designation does not need to be 
in writing, it can be verbal too.

                              {time}  1530

  So that says if you get some oral recommendation from a physician 
that you can use marijuana, you can say, I am not going to get it 
myself. I can designate somebody to go get it for me. I want my child 
to go get it, my 6-year-old kid, my eight-year-old kid. Send them down 
to the playground or wherever they are selling marijuana in the 
District of Columbia, they can possess that marijuana and take it back 
to the person to do drugs, to do the medical marijuana, a child. A 
child can be put in that position.
  I have seen from personal experience children going to school with 
lunch money, and the bully of the school, of the play yard, said, give 
me a quarter or you can't come in. I want a quarter of your lunch 
money. The child says, okay, here is a quarter. Now it changes the 
whole scope of things. Here is a child in legal possession of 
marijuana. What is the bully going to ask for this time? Do Members 
think this will not proliferate drugs in the District of Columbia?
  We want to make this a shining jewel of this Nation, one of the best 
cities in the Nation, something we can all be proud of; a safe place, 
not a drug haven, not the drug capital, our Nation's Capital. That is 
what we are leaning for here, and that is what the President is 
fighting for.
  It is not over the budget. We have accepted the District of 
Columbia's budget, what was passed by their city council, what was 
approved by their Mayor. It is in this bill. The difference is the drug 
policy. That is what the President has narrowed this down to, the drug 
policy.
  The gentleman from Virginia has aptly pointed out that he cannot 
speak for the administration. The administration has other ideas. This 
is one of them. This is one of the things that we are so worried about. 
I just would urge my colleagues to avoid any changes and to support 
this bill. This is a good bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, my wife is a medical social worker. She has 
worked at D.C. General, she has worked at Georgetown Hospital. She has 
seen crack babies. Nobody has to lecture me or her or anybody else on 
that side of the aisle on the idiocy and stupidity of drugs. I hate 
them. I hate all drugs.
  But we have a difference of opinion here. We have a difference of 
opinion about whether we will really save lives by guaranteeing clean 
needle exchanges for people who are crazy enough or hooked enough to 
continue the drug habit. We have a difference of opinion on whether we 
will save lives or not.
  I also do not happen to agree with the referendum that passed D.C. 
about the medical uses of marijuana, but I do believe that the District 
government ought to have the power to work out a rational compromise 
that does close the door to pain without opening the door to drug 
abuse.
  But that is not what is at issue here today, because I recognize that 
the majority would rather have ``Beat Up on Bill Clinton Day'' than to 
sit down and negotiate in a rational way to work out agreements on 
these two issues. So recognizing the hardheaded reality on that side of 
the aisle, I would also say hardhearted, but it would be against the 
House rules if I said that, so I will simply say, put those issues 
aside.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has just indicated we may 
disagree with the gentleman on those issues, but we think the string 
has been run out on that. So what we do stand here today asking that 
side to do is this: Recognize the fundamental right of taxpayers in any 
locality in this country to use their own dollars any blessed way they 
want in order to defend their own interests in a democratic society, 
when it comes to the question of whether or not they are going to be 
able to exercise the most precious right that any individual citizen 
has in a democracy, the simple right to vote and have that vote count. 
That is all we are asking at this point: put aside the differences on 
the drug issues and simply say, okay, you win.
  And now let us get to the question of democracy. All we have to do, 
as the gentleman from Virginia said, is to add one word, the word 
``Federal,'' so it makes clear that the D.C. government cannot spend 
Federal money to pursue the right of representation in a democratic 
system, but that they can spend their own money. What on God's green 
Earth is wrong with that?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the gentleman what is 
wrong with it. What is wrong with it is it completely abrogates the 
responsibility of the Congress of the United States of America, 
representing the people of the country, to exercise exclusive 
legislation over the District of Columbia, which the Constitution 
provides. Members on that side have not mentioned it and there is a 
reason they have not, because they do not want to deal with it.
  The fact of the matter is that our Founding Fathers placed full and 
complete plenary legislative authority over the District of Columbia in 
the hands of the Congress. If Members want to walk away from that and 
say the District of Columbia Council should have that authority, then 
fine, go ahead and propose a constitutional amendment. But those of us 
on this side have higher regard for our Constitution than to be a party 
to that.
  We are not going to walk away from our responsibility reflecting the 
will of the people of the country by a large majority who do not want 
drugs legally flowing through the streets of the District of Columbia. 
They are already concerned enough about how many drugs are here, and 
the high murder rate. We are sure as heck not going to make it legal to 
do drugs in the District of Columbia. That, Mr. Speaker, is precisely 
what the District of Columbia wants to do.
  As the gentleman from Oklahoma said, they can couch it in whatever 
flowery language they want to, and they can get down here with this 
self-righteous mantle of, do not lecture us about this or that, and 
people work in hospitals, and so forth. It is not hardhearted, it is 
not uncompassionate, to say no to drugs.
  What does the President want to do? The President wants to allow 
drugs, marijuana specifically, as a gateway drug, in the District of 
Columbia. We on this side of the aisle say no.
  Let me answer the question posed to us earlier by the gentleman from 
Virginia in his proposal, his so-called compromise: No, N-O. I do not 
know whether they misunderstand those two letters, but we are not 
interested in the sham of saying, they can do it with this money, but 
not this money.
  Either we stand up against drugs in our Nation's Capital, or we cave 
in to it. We want to stand tall on this side.

[[Page H10087]]

We want to stand firm here and say, pursuant to our authorities under 
the Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 8, 
Clause 17, that we do have a responsibility here.
  Our responsibility goes beyond simply the funding. It goes beyond 
simply dollars and cents. It goes to the fundamental issue of whether 
or not in our Nation's Capital we shall continue to fight against mind-
altering drugs, or whether we shall surrender to it. The President 
wants to surrender, and we on this side of the aisle do not.
  I appreciate the gentleman's offer. It is not a new one. They have 
tried it before. We argued last year about this. We argued this year 
about it. Apparently we are going to have to argue about it today. The 
answer is no.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's 
point, but we have a misunderstanding as to the issue. I am not talking 
about the Federal use of funds for marijuana or for needles. This is 
only voting rights.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, my response to the gentleman from Georgia who 
just spoke is simply this. Of course the Congress has the 
constitutional authority to use its power to shove the District around, 
but the Constitution does not require that mature people in every 
instance use the full power that they have when another course is more 
fair and more rational and more just.
  Just because we have the muscle does not mean it is always right to 
exercise it. Once in a while it pays to have a little sense of balance. 
That is what we are asking you to show for a change today.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, very frankly, I will say to my friend, the gentleman 
from Georgia, his side of the aisle is so intent on making the 
political point, and a point with which I agree with reference to the 
use of marijuana, that it is not listening to what the gentleman from 
Virginia said. So intent are they on the politicization of this debate 
that they are ignoring the substance of this debate.
  What the gentleman from Virginia said, they have seven riders on this 
bill. He said with respect to one rider, to which I am vigorously 
opposed and believe is exactly contrary to what the Founding Fathers 
had in mind, and that is the restriction on the District of Columbia to 
press its rights in the courts of this land by refusing it the 
opportunity to use its corporate funds, that is, tax dollars paid in by 
its citizens to its government, for the purposes of saying, we are 
being denied our rights under the Constitution of the United States, 
that is what my friend is trying to preclude the District of Columbia 
citizens from doing. But he is so intent on making his political point 
that it is the drugs issue that he wants to focus on, solely.
  The gentleman from Virginia said nothing about that provision. What 
he said was that we would agree to this bill if that side added one 
word to the provision that prohibits 600,000 American citizens from 
pursuing their rights in the courts of this land, corporately.
  The gentleman is the chairman of this committee said what I was 
saying was hogwash the last time we had this debate. One could make 
their own analysis of the substance of that kind of debate. But the 
fact of the matter is that he does prohibit in this bill the use of 
funds to pursue constitutional relief.
  All the gentleman from Virginia is saying is, add ``Federal funds.'' 
I think that is wrong, but add ``Federal funds.'' Just because we have 
the power to do so, I would say that parents have the power to do 
things they ought not to do, and the State has the power to do things 
that it ought not to do. The fact of the matter is that we ought not to 
preclude Federal funds.
  Let us assume that their side of the aisle, which has the majority 
votes, wants to preclude the District of Columbia from pursuing its 
constitutional relief by saying that they cannot use Federal funds. All 
the gentleman from Virginia is saying is, all right, let them use their 
own locally-raised funds to ask the Supreme Court or the circuit courts 
or the District court for relief.
  If that is added, just that one word, what the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) is offering is that we will support this bill and 
let it go; not because we agree with the other six, we do not 
necessarily agree with the other six, although I tend to agree with the 
gentleman's provision with reference to the provision that he is so 
offended by, but because we believe that this is the single most 
egregious provision I think we have included in any piece of 
legislation since I have been here, to say to 600,000 American 
citizens, we are not even going to allow you to use your corporately-
raised funds for the purposes of redressing your constitutional 
grievances and protecting your constitutional rights.
  Surely the gentleman from Georgia, who has talked about the 
Constitution, cannot support that provision.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, for Members, this may be a typical appropriation 
exercise. That is not what it is for me. It is my city Members are 
talking about. I have come forward on this rule not for the usual 
reasons. For me, I want to be clear that this is well beyond any 
particular provision of this bill.
  The demagoguing that is done on the other side about drugs falls like 
a lead balloon. There is nobody in the United States, even those who 
detest Bill Clinton, that believes he wants to legalize drugs in the 
District of Columbia. I am going to let that one fall.
  The problem identified by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) is 
entirely correct. That is why I had indicated that the way to address 
that is to send the matter to the city council, which has the power to 
change it or obliterate the whole matter. Nobody thinks in the United 
States of America that drugs are at issue here.
  For me, this matter is well beyond any particular provision of this 
bill. For me, this matter is about something that has never happened in 
this House since I have been here, and I have asked all the old-timers 
if they have ever seen it happen.
  For me, this is about bringing a bill to the floor for a vote after a 
veto without a single word of discussion with the man who must sign the 
bill or his agent, the President of the United States. It has never 
been done so long as anybody knows in the history of this House.

                              {time}  1545

  Thus, I do not oppose this rule for the usual reason, that it is a 
closed rule. I oppose this rule because we have before us a unilateral 
document where no discussions have occurred with the White House, in 
spite of the fact that the White House on several occasions has come 
forward and asked for a discussion.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I certainly will not yield. I certainly will not yield, 
sir. I will not yield a single moment, sir. Not only am I not going to 
yield, I may ask for some more time to discuss what is happening to my 
city.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) still has the time.
  Ms. NORTON. No, I am not going to yield. I have yielded too much. I 
let this bill go on this floor to conference, when many on my side said 
it should not. I yielded then, and the gentleman promised me that he 
would move on the matter that has been brought up here by several 
Members on voting rights for the people of my city, to have their 
corporation counsel look at the papers that had been prepared by a 
private law firm to see whether or not they were in order. I yielded. I 
am not going to yield this time.
  For me, this is a new low in this House to proceed after a veto, 
stonewalling the President who comes forward and says I think we can 
work this out, let us have a discussion. That is all this is about.
  I was so concerned that I marched over, just a couple of hours ago, 
to see the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) because I believe he 
is a fair

[[Page H10088]]

man. I must say he saw me right on the spot. I marched over because I 
could not believe that he was part and parcel of not even having a word 
of discussion before we unilaterally brought a bill to the floor, 
inviting a veto. I am supposed to get up here and say to Democrats, 
vote no. You are supposed to get up here and say to Republicans, vote 
yes. Big exercise. Big ritual for you. Serious business for the more 
than half million people I represent. I was trying to break through it.
  I am pleased the Speaker saw me. He said, ``Eleanor, we do intend to 
have negotiations after this vote.''
  I said, ``Fine. Let us have it before so that there is no posturing 
on the floor about drugs, so that I do not have to get up and talk 
about home rule.''
  Do it the way it is always done. Let us sit back and talk about it 
now. The administration is ready. I have talked with them.''
  The Speaker listened. His staff listened. He said that he would take 
it under advisement. There was a postponement. I thought maybe we were 
getting somewhere. Obviously people have been talking back and forth, 
but then we were told that the bill was in order.
  All that is left, since the President of the United States must agree 
on this bill, all that is left is for me to ask for a no vote on this 
rule in order to begin discussions. And, my friends, I want you to hear 
my words, ``begin.'' Discussions did not collapse. They have never 
begun.
  When there is a veto, the only way to settle the matter is indeed to 
sit down with the adversary to see whether things can be straightened 
out. That is the way I have done business for my city ever since the 
first day I walked into this House in 1991. That is the way I intend 
always to do business for my city, and I ask for the respect that I 
think that I am due, to have you sit down with the agents of the 
President of the United States, so that Members of the House and the 
Senate can talk with them about whether we can get somewhere and, if we 
cannot then let us come back, have this vote and go the next step. That 
courtesy has not been given to me. I think I am entitled at least to 
that.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, there are other things that I will want to 
say before we conclude this debate, but in response to the, frankly, 
incredible statements just made by the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton), having spent many hours talking with people, 
having told the White House just yesterday talking with their 
designated person on this that I would meet with them, I would change 
my schedule any, and they just do not get back to me. We keep trying. 
We have talked with them. I have done it personally.
  I have talked with the gentlewoman. I have talked with other people. 
Ma'am, I take huge offense at your false representation that we have 
not been trying to work with people.
  I would further submit, if the gentlewoman and other people would 
publicly call on the President to renounce his veto message, where he 
vetoed this over the marijuana laws in D.C., we would make great 
progress.
  Why cannot the other side get this marijuana issue beside us by 
calling on the President to retract his veto message that the other 
side defends instead?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, there is a veto SAP over here. The only 
reason there is a veto SAP over here is that instead of sitting down in 
a room with the administration, you have insisted upon unilaterally 
coming to the floor and you know good and well that the administration, 
Jack Lew himself called you personally and said to you that he was 
willing to negotiate any time; that you give one story, the Senate 
people give another story.
  Instead of doing what you have done on every bill, which is everybody 
get in the room or get on a conference call and see what you can agree 
to, instead you get one person saying something that is exactly the 
opposite of another person, no agreement; and you do not get everybody 
sitting together trying to work out the bill the way you did on HUD/VA, 
the way you did on every bill; and that is the kind of respect that I 
think we are entitled to and you have not given us and you have not 
given the President of the United States.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me this time.
  First of all, let me say to my friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), in defense of what my friend and colleague, 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), said we 
have two issues, as the gentleman knows, that could resolve this entire 
debate.
  One is voting rights, which we have offered, and it simply says, as 
the gentleman from Maryland so eloquently expressed, just prohibit 
Federal funds. That is all.
  The other is an issue that in a bipartisan way we discussed at length 
in the full Committee on Appropriations. We brought out all the 
scientific studies. We explained that this needle program is really for 
the purpose of bringing drug addicts in, enabling Whitman-Walker Clinic 
to provide drug treatment for them. It is access to people in desperate 
need of help.
  We are not trying to use any Federal funds. The use of all public 
funds can be prohibited. Just let them use private funds; and that is 
what the bipartisan, full Committee on Appropriations agreed to, bar 
the use of public funds. Let Whitman-Walker conduct its own affairs, 
though, with private funds.
  If those two provisions were accepted, the White House told the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), it could accept this bill; it 
could accept this bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) told 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) he would 
work out the Voting Rights Act in conference. It was not done. That is 
why the gentlewoman is so upset. The gentleman said he would do it, and 
it did not get done. The gentleman can say he tried, but it did not 
happen.
  With regard to needles, we are just saying bar the use of public 
funds, and that is what Members of the gentleman's side of the aisle 
agreed.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude the point that I was making. This 
side is not being intransigent. This side feels very strongly about all 
of the issues in the veto message, but this side wants to make an 
agreement.
  This side wants to move forward. This side wants to find some 
bipartisan commonality. We are not asking for anything that has not 
been accepted by the majority of this body, really. Voting rights, and 
the amendment that was accepted in a bipartisan way on barring the use 
of public funds, this is not unreasonable.
  All we have to do, and that is what the White House has suggested, 
buy into those, we will fight the issues another day. That is what we 
should do.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder), for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me see if we can maybe narrow down the scope of our 
disagreement. My concern is with section 167 of this piece of 
legislation, specifically section 167(a) which says, ``None of the 
funds contained in this Act may be used to enact or carry out any law, 
rule, or regulation to legalize or otherwise reduce penalties 
associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I 
substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any 
tetrahydrocannabinols derivative,'' and section 167(b) which states, 
``The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 
1998, also known as Initiative 59, approved by the electors of the 
District of Columbia on November 3, 1998, shall not take effect.''
  Now, is it my understanding that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) is willing to accept that language? Is he stating that he has no 
problem with either section 167(a) or 167(b)?
  I would yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) to answer 
that.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

[[Page H10089]]

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I would say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr), we have lots of problems with the language. What we want is to 
reach a compromise and get this appropriations bill.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I thought that the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) previously was saying that we needed to 
insert the word ``Federal,'' and then I understand from the gentleman 
from Maryland he was talking about a different section; but I implied 
from that, apparently erroneously, that the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) has no problem with section 167(a) or (b), but apparently 
he does.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. We have lots of problems, but we would like to 
work out a compromise.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I thought maybe we had 
narrowed down the areas of disagreement so the other side does disagree 
with the prohibition in this bill that would stop the District of 
Columbia from moving forward with legalization of marijuana. This again 
clarifies the issue. I really thought we had reached an agreement on 
167(a) and (b), but the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) informs me 
that we have not.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I recognize this is unusual. I appreciate 
how much people are trying to find some common ground and agreement 
here. There has been so much movement on the floor, so much more, I 
must say, than has taken place in any discussions, that I would ask 
that instead of going forward with the bill now that we go off this 
floor now and see if we can reach some kind of agreement on this bill.
  I think everybody who has spoken has moved this forward. I cannot say 
what we have agreed to, but I can say that I think that the very 
process of talking back and forth for the first time has been a good 
process, and we ought to continue it rather than march down the line so 
we have hardened lines again and have to start all over again.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Is the gentlewoman willing to say publicly that she will 
accept the provision that does not permit the legalization of 
marijuana, Proposition 59, in the District of Columbia? Will the 
gentlewoman say that?
  Ms. NORTON. My own position on the legalization of marijuana is well 
known. I oppose the legalization of drugs.
  What I would like to move us ahead on is what we can do with the 
particular provisions in the bill. We have recognized all along that 
some of these provisions are going to be changed; that we have 
differences here but we have never been able to get down in a room and 
see what, in fact, can be done.
  All I am saying is I am willing to do that right now and believe that 
the way to move this bill forward is to, in fact, take hold of the 
discussions that have begun here and try to come to agreement.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would only ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), the manager of the rule, whether he is willing to entertain 
the suggestion by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) that the rule be temporarily withdrawn from the floor so that 
the possibility of compromise can be pursued.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia would like to 
inform the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) that, as soon as he uses up 
his 3\1/2\ minutes, I intend to move the previous question.
  Mr. FROST. So the answer to my question is no.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some very interesting debate on 
this bill. It is unfortunate that we cannot reach a compromise. It is 
clear the other side is unwilling to pursue a compromise at this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by saying this is a fair 
rule, considering the fact that this entire bill was debated openly and 
at great length on July 27 or 28, that we have keen knowledge of what 
is in this bill from both sides.
  I urge the House to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 202, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 503]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel

[[Page H10090]]


     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Boucher
     Buyer
     Carson
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Dooley
     Green (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Kingston
     McNulty
     Scarborough
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1625

  Mr. GUTIERREZ and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________