[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 139 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H10090-H10112]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call up 
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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 3064 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3064

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of 
     Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                TITLE I--FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS

                             FEDERAL FUNDS

              Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for a 
     program to be administered by the Mayor for District of 
     Columbia resident tuition support, subject to the enactment 
     of authorizing legislation for such program by Congress, 
     $17,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such funds may be used on behalf of eligible District of 
     Columbia residents to pay an amount based upon the difference 
     between in-State and out-of-State tuition at public 
     institutions of higher education, usable at both public and 
     private institutions of higher education: Provided further, 
     That the awarding of such funds may be prioritized on the 
     basis of a resident's academic merit and such other factors 
     as may be authorized: Provided further, That if the 
     authorized program is a nationwide program, the Mayor may 
     expend up to $17,000,000: Provided further, That if the 
     authorized program is for a limited number of states, the 
     Mayor may expend up to $11,000,000: Provided further, That 
     the District of Columbia may expend funds other than the 
     funds provided under this heading, including local tax 
     revenues and contributions, to support such program.

        Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create 
     incentives to promote the adoption of children in the 
     District of Columbia foster care system, $5,000,000: 
     Provided, That such funds shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2001 and shall be used in accordance with a 
     program established by the Mayor and the Council of the 
     District of Columbia and approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate: Provided further, That funds provided under this 
     heading may be used to cover the costs to the District of 
     Columbia of providing tax credits to offset the costs 
     incurred by individuals in adopting children in the District 
     of Columbia foster care system and in providing for the 
     health care needs of such children, in accordance with 
     legislation enacted by the District of Columbia government.

         Federal Payment to the Citizen Complaint Review Board

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for 
     administrative expenses of the Citizen Complaint Review 
     Board, $500,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2001.

          Federal Payment to the Department of Human Services

       For a Federal payment to the Department of Human Services 
     for a mentoring program and for hotline services, $250,000.

    Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee 
                               Operations

       For salaries and expenses of the District of Columbia 
     Corrections Trustee, $176,000,000 for the administration and 
     operation of correctional facilities and for the 
     administrative operating costs of the Office of the 
     Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the 
     National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
     Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712): 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     funds appropriated in this Act for the District of Columbia 
     Corrections

[[Page H10091]]

     Trustee shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same 
     manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of 
     other Federal agencies: Provided further, That in addition to 
     the funds provided under this heading, the District of 
     Columbia Corrections Trustee may use a portion of the 
     interest earned on the Federal payment made to the Trustee 
     under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1998, (not 
     to exceed $4,600,000) to carry out the activities funded 
     under this heading.

           Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts

       For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia 
     Courts, $99,714,000 to be allocated as follows: for the 
     District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $7,209,000; for the 
     District of Columbia Superior Court, $68,351,000; for the 
     District of Columbia Court System, $16,154,000; and 
     $8,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2001, for 
     capital improvements for District of Columbia courthouse 
     facilities: Provided, That of the amounts available for 
     operations of the District of Columbia Courts, not to exceed 
     $2,500,000 shall be for the design of an Integrated Justice 
     Information System and that such funds shall be used in 
     accordance with a plan and design developed by the courts and 
     approved by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts under 
     this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same 
     manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of 
     other Federal agencies, with payroll and financial services 
     to be provided on a contractual basis with the General 
     Services Administration [GSA], said services to include the 
     preparation of monthly financial reports, copies of which 
     shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President and to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House 
     of Representatives.

            Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts

       For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section 
     11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under 
     the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act), payments for 
     counsel appointed in proceedings in the Family Division of 
     the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under chapter 
     23 of title 16, D.C. Code, and payments for counsel 
     authorized under section 21-2060, D.C. Code (relating to 
     representation provided under the District of Columbia 
     Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of 
     Attorney Act of 1986), $33,336,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the funds provided in this Act under 
     the heading ``Federal Payment to the District of Columbia 
     Courts'' (other than the $8,000,000 provided under such 
     heading for capital improvements for District of Columbia 
     courthouse facilities) may also be used for payments under 
     this heading Provided further, That in addition to the funds 
     provided under this heading, the Joint Committee on Judicial 
     Administration in the District of Columbia may use a portion 
     (not to exceed $1,200,000) of the interest earned on the 
     Federal payment made to the District of Columbia courts under 
     the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, together 
     with funds provided in this Act under the heading ``Federal 
     Payment to the District of Columbia Courts'' (other than the 
     $8,000,000 provided under such heading for capital 
     improvements for District of Columbia courthouse facilities), 
     to make payments described under this heading for obligations 
     incurred during fiscal year 1999 if the Comptroller General 
     certifies that the amount of obligations lawfully incurred 
     for such payments during fiscal year 1999 exceeds the 
     obligational authority otherwise available for making such 
     payments: Provided further, That such funds shall be 
     administered by the Joint Committee on Judicial 
     Administration in the District of Columbia: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, this 
     appropriation shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of 
     Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same 
     manner as funds appropriated for expenses of other Federal 
     agencies, with payroll and financial services to be provided 
     on a contractual basis with the General Services 
     Administration [GSA], said services to include the 
     preparation of monthly financial reports, copies of which 
     shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President and to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House 
     of Representatives.

 Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency 
                      for the District of Columbia

       For salaries and expenses of the Court Services and 
     Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, as 
     authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
     Government Improvement Act of 1997, (Public Law 105-33; 111 
     Stat. 712), $93,800,000, of which $58,600,000 shall be for 
     necessary expenses of Parole Revocation, Adult Probation, 
     Offender Supervision, and Sex Offender Registration, to 
     include expenses relating to supervision of adults subject to 
     protection orders or provision of services for or related to 
     such persons; $17,400,000 shall be available to the Public 
     Defender Service; and $17,800,000 shall be available to the 
     Pretrial Services Agency: Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, all amounts under this heading shall 
     be apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and 
     Budget and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds 
     appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal 
     agencies: Provided further, That of the amounts made 
     available under this heading, $20,492,000 shall be used in 
     support of universal drug screening and testing for those 
     individuals on pretrial, probation, or parole supervision 
     with continued testing, intermediate sanctions, and treatment 
     for those identified in need, of which $7,000,000 shall be 
     for treatment services.

                   Children's National Medical Center

       For a Federal contribution to the Children's National 
     Medical Center in the District of Columbia, $2,500,000 for 
     construction, renovation, and information technology 
     infrastructure costs associated with establishing community 
     pediatric health clinics for high risk children in medically 
     underserved areas of the District of Columbia.

           Federal Payment for Metropolitan Police Department

       For payment to the Metropolitan Police Department, 
     $1,000,000, for a program to eliminate open air drug 
     trafficking in the District of Columbia: Provided, That the 
     Chief of Police shall provide quarterly reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives by the 15th calendar day after the end of 
     each quarter beginning December 31, 1999, on the status of 
     the project financed under this heading.

                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

                          Division of Expenses

       The following amounts are appropriated for the District of 
     Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund 
     of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided.

                   Governmental Direction and Support

       Governmental direction and support, $162,356,000 (including 
     $137,134,000 from local funds, $11,670,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $13,552,000 from other funds): Provided, That not 
     to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the 
     City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation 
     for official purposes: Provided further, That any program 
     fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available 
     for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of 
     the District of Columbia: Provided further, That no revenues 
     from Federal sources shall be used to support the operations 
     or activities of the Statehood Commission and Statehood 
     Compact Commission: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission 
     to Statehood from its own locally-generated revenues: 
     Provided further, That all employees permanently assigned to 
     work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid from funds 
     allocated to the Office of the Mayor.

                  Economic Development and Regulation

       Economic development and regulation, $190,335,000 
     (including $52,911,000 from local funds, $84,751,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $52,673,000 from other funds), of which 
     $15,000,000 collected by the District of Columbia in the form 
     of BID tax revenue shall be paid to the respective BIDs 
     pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996 
     (D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the 
     Business Improvement Districts Temporary Amendment Act of 
     1997 (D.C. Law 12-23): Provided, That such funds are 
     available for acquiring services provided by the General 
     Services Administration: Provided further, That Business 
     Improvement Districts shall be exempt from taxes levied by 
     the District of Columbia.

                       Public Safety and Justice

       Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease of 
     135 passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement only, 
     including 130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use, 
     without regard to the general purchase price limitation for 
     the current fiscal year, $778,770,000 (including $565,511,000 
     from local funds, $29,012,000 from Federal funds, and 
     $184,247,000 from other funds): Provided, That the 
     Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not 
     to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Department 
     of Fire and Emergency Medical Services of the District of 
     Columbia is authorized to replace not to exceed five 
     passenger-carrying vehicles annually whenever the cost of 
     repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds three-fourths of the 
     cost of the replacement: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $500,000 shall be available from this appropriation for the 
     Chief of Police for the prevention and detection of crime: 
     Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department 
     shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate on efforts to increase 
     efficiency and improve the professionalism in the department: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, or Mayor's Order 86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the 
     Metropolitan Police Department's delegated small purchase 
     authority shall be $500,000: Provided

[[Page H10092]]

     further, That the District of Columbia government may not 
     require the Metropolitan Police Department to submit to any 
     other procurement review process, or to obtain the approval 
     of or be restricted in any manner by any official or employee 
     of the District of Columbia government, for purchases that do 
     not exceed $500,000: Provided further, That the Mayor shall 
     reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for 
     expenses incurred in connection with services that are 
     performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia 
     status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall 
     be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for 
     these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the 
     District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That 
     such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the 
     District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding 
     proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the 
     availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting 
     payment in advance for emergency services involved: Provided 
     further, That the Metropolitan Police Department is 
     authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn officers, with leave for a 
     50 officer attrition: Provided further, That no more than 15 
     members of the Metropolitan Police Department shall be 
     detailed or assigned to the Executive Protection Unit, until 
     the Chief of Police submits a recommendation to the Council 
     for its review: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be 
     available for inmates released on medical and geriatric 
     parole: Provided further, That commencing on December 31, 
     1999, the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House 
     of Representatives, quarterly reports on the status of crime 
     reduction in each of the 83 police service areas established 
     throughout the District of Columbia: Provided further, That 
     up to $700,000 in local funds shall be available for the 
     operations of the Citizen Complaint Review Board.

                        Public Education System

       Public education system, including the development of 
     national defense education programs, $867,411,000 (including 
     $721,847,000 from local funds, $120,951,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $24,613,000 from other funds), to be allocated as 
     follows: $713,197,000 (including $600,936,000 from local 
     funds, $106,213,000 from Federal funds, and $6,048,000 from 
     other funds), for the public schools of the District of 
     Columbia; $10,700,000 from local funds for the District of 
     Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; $17,000,000 from local 
     funds, previously appropriated in this Act as a Federal 
     payment, for resident tuition support at public and private 
     institutions of higher learning for eligible District of 
     Columbia residents; $27,885,000 from local funds for public 
     charter schools: Provided, That if the entirety of this 
     allocation has not been provided as payments to any public 
     charter schools currently in operation through the per pupil 
     funding formula, the funds shall be available for new public 
     charter schools on a per pupil basis: Provided further, That 
     $480,000 of this amount shall be available to the District of 
     Columbia Public Charter School Board for administrative 
     costs: $72,347,000 (including $40,491,000 from local funds, 
     $13,536,000 from Federal funds, and $18,320,000 from other 
     funds) for the University of the District of Columbia; 
     $24,171,000 (including $23,128,000 from local funds, $798,000 
     from Federal funds, and $245,000 from other funds) for the 
     Public Library; $2,111,000 (including $1,707,000 from local 
     funds and $404,000 from Federal funds) for the Commission on 
     the Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That the public 
     schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept 
     not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use in the 
     driver education program: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for 
     the President of the University of the District of Columbia, 
     and $2,000 for the Public Librarian shall be available from 
     this appropriation for official purposes: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds contained in this Act may be made 
     available to pay the salaries of any District of Columbia 
     Public School teacher, principal, administrator, official, or 
     employee who knowingly provides false enrollment or 
     attendance information under article II, section 5 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to provide for compulsory school 
     attendance, for the taking of a school census in the District 
     of Columbia, and for other purposes'', approved February 4, 
     1925 (D.C. Code, sec. 31-401 et seq.): Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the 
     education of any nonresident of the District of Columbia at 
     any District of Columbia public elementary and secondary 
     school during fiscal year 2000 unless the nonresident pays 
     tuition to the District of Columbia at a rate that covers 100 
     percent of the costs incurred by the District of Columbia 
     which are attributable to the education of the nonresident 
     (as established by the Superintendent of the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools): Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the 
     education of nonresidents of the District of Columbia at the 
     University of the District of Columbia, unless the Board of 
     Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia 
     adopts, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, a 
     tuition rate schedule that will establish the tuition rate 
     for nonresident students at a level no lower than the 
     nonresident tuition rate charged at comparable public 
     institutions of higher education in the metropolitan area: 
     Provided further, That the District of Columbia Public 
     Schools shall not spend less than $365,500,000 on local 
     schools through the Weighted Student Formula in fiscal year 
     2000: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Chief Financial Officer of the District 
     of Columbia shall apportion from the budget of the District 
     of Columbia Public Schools a sum totaling 5 percent of the 
     total budget to be set aside until the current student count 
     for Public and Charter schools has been completed, and that 
     this amount shall be apportioned between the Public and 
     Charter schools based on their respective student population 
     count: Provided further, That the District of Columbia Public 
     Schools may spend $500,000 to engage in a Schools Without 
     Violence program based on a model developed by the University 
     of North Carolina, located in Greensboro, North Carolina.

                         Human Support Services

       Human support services, $1,526,361,000 (including 
     $635,373,000 from local funds, $875,814,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $15,174,000 from other funds): Provided, That 
     $25,150,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia 
     employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That a 
     peer review committee shall be established to review medical 
     payments and the type of service received by a disability 
     compensation claimant: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia shall not provide free government services such as 
     water, sewer, solid waste disposal or collection, utilities, 
     maintenance, repairs, or similar services to any legally 
     constituted private nonprofit organization, as defined in 
     section 411(5) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
     Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11371), 
     providing emergency shelter services in the District, if the 
     District would not be qualified to receive reimbursement 
     pursuant to such Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 
     U.S.C. 11301 et seq.).

                              Public Works

       Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying 
     vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying 
     vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia 
     and leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles, $271,395,000 
     (including $258,341,000 from local funds, $3,099,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $9,955,000 from other funds): Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall not be available for collecting 
     ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and places of 
     business.

                         Receivership Programs

       For all agencies of the District of Columbia government 
     under court ordered receivership, $342,077,000 (including 
     $217,606,000 from local funds, $106,111,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $18,360,000 from other funds).

                         Workforce Investments

       For workforce investments, $8,500,000 from local funds, to 
     be transferred by the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
     within the various appropriation headings in this Act for 
     which employees are properly payable.

                                Reserve

       For a reserve to be established by the Chief Financial 
     Officer of the District of Columbia and the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority, $150,000,000.

District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
                               Authority

       For the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority, established by section 
     101(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (109 Stat. 97; Public 
     Law 104-8), $3,140,000: Provided, That none of the funds 
     contained in this Act may be used to pay any compensation of 
     the Executive Director or General Counsel of the Authority at 
     a rate in excess of the maximum rate of compensation which 
     may be paid to such individual during fiscal year 2000 under 
     section 102 of such Act, as determined by the Comptroller 
     General (as described in GAO letter report B-279095.2).

                    Repayment of Loans and Interest

       For payment of principal, interest and certain fees 
     directly resulting from borrowing by the District of Columbia 
     to fund District of Columbia capital projects as authorized 
     by sections 462, 475, and 490 of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973, as amended, and 
     that funds shall be allocated for expenses associated with 
     the Wilson Building, $328,417,000 from local funds: Provided, 
     That for equipment leases, the Mayor may finance $27,527,000 
     of equipment cost, plus cost of issuance not to exceed 2 
     percent of the par amount being financed on a lease purchase 
     basis with a maturity not to exceed 5 years: Provided 
     further, That $5,300,000 is allocated to the Metropolitan 
     Police Department, $3,200,000 for the Fire and Emergency 
     Medical Services Department, $350,000 for the Department of 
     Corrections, $15,949,000 for the Department of Public Works 
     and $2,728,000 for the Public Benefit Corporation.

                Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt

       For the purpose of eliminating the $331,589,000 general 
     fund accumulated deficit as of September 30, 1990, 
     $38,286,000 from

[[Page H10093]]

     local funds, as authorized by section 461(a) of the District 
     of Columbia Home Rule Act (105 Stat. 540; D.C. Code, sec. 47-
     321(a)(1)).

              Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing

       For payment of interest on short-term borrowing, $9,000,000 
     from local funds.

                     Certificates of Participation

       For lease payments in accordance with the Certificates of 
     Participation involving the land site underlying the building 
     located at One Judiciary Square, $7,950,000 from local funds.

                 Optical and Dental Insurance Payments

       For optical and dental insurance payments, $1,295,000 from 
     local funds.

                           Productivity Bank

       The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, 
     under the direction of the Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     shall finance projects totaling $20,000,000 in local funds 
     that result in cost savings or additional revenues, by an 
     amount equal to such financing: Provided, That the Mayor 
     shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     by the 15th calendar day after the end of each quarter 
     beginning December 31, 1999, on the status of the projects 
     financed under this heading.

                       Productivity Bank Savings

       The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, 
     under the direction of the Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     shall make reductions totaling $20,000,000 in local funds. 
     The reductions are to be allocated to projects funded through 
     the Productivity Bank that produce cost savings or additional 
     revenues in an amount equal to the Productivity Bank 
     financing: Provided, That the Mayor shall provide quarterly 
     reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate by the 15th calendar day after 
     the end of each quarter beginning December 31, 1999, on the 
     status of the cost savings or additional revenues funded 
     under this heading.

                   Procurement and Management Savings

       The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, 
     under the direction of the Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     shall make reductions of $14,457,000 for general supply 
     schedule savings and $7,000,000 for management reform 
     savings, in local funds to one or more of the appropriation 
     headings in this Act: Provided, That the Mayor shall provide 
     quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate by the 15th calendar 
     day after the end of each quarter beginning December 31, 
     1999, on the status of the general supply schedule savings 
     and management reform savings projected under this heading.

                       ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS

         Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct

       For operation of the Water and Sewer Authority and the 
     Washington Aqueduct, $279,608,000 from other funds (including 
     $236,075,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority and 
     $43,533,000 for the Washington Aqueduct) of which $35,222,000 
     shall be apportioned and payable to the District's debt 
     service fund for repayment of loans and interest incurred for 
     capital improvement projects.
       For construction projects, $197,169,000, as authorized by 
     An Act authorizing the laying of watermains and service 
     sewers in the District of Columbia, the levying of 
     assessments therefor, and for other purposes (33 Stat. 244; 
     Public Law 58-140; D.C. Code, sec. 43-1512 et seq.): 
     Provided, That the requirements and restrictions that are 
     applicable to general fund capital improvements projects and 
     set forth in this Act under the Capital Outlay appropriation 
     title shall apply to projects approved under this 
     appropriation title.

              Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund

       For the Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund, 
     established by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982 (95 Stat. 1174 and 
     1175; Public Law 97-91), for the purpose of implementing the 
     Law to Legalize Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and 
     Raffles for Charitable Purposes in the District of Columbia 
     (D.C. Law 3-172; D.C. Code, sec. 2-2501 et seq. and sec. 22-
     1516 et seq.), $234,400,000: Provided, That the District of 
     Columbia shall identify the source of funding for this 
     appropriation title from the District's own locally generated 
     revenues: Provided further, That no revenues from Federal 
     sources shall be used to support the operations or activities 
     of the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board.

                  Sports and Entertainment Commission

       For the Sports and Entertainment Commission, $10,846,000 
     from other funds for expenses incurred by the Armory Board in 
     the exercise of its powers granted by the Act entitled ``An 
     Act To Establish A District of Columbia Armory Board, and for 
     other purposes'' (62 Stat. 339; D.C. Code, sec. 2-301 et 
     seq.) and the District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957 (71 
     Stat. 619; Public Law 85-300; D.C. Code, sec. 2-321 et seq.): 
     Provided, That the Mayor shall submit a budget for the Armory 
     Board for the forthcoming fiscal year as required by section 
     442(b) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat. 
     824; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301(b)).

  District of Columbia Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation

       For the District of Columbia Health and Hospitals Public 
     Benefit Corporation, established by D.C. Law 11-212, D.C. 
     Code, sec. 32-262.2, $133,443,000 of which $44,435,000 shall 
     be derived by transfer from the general fund and $89,008,000 
     from other funds.

                 District of Columbia Retirement Board

       For the District of Columbia Retirement Board, established 
     by section 121 of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform 
     Act of 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Code, sec. 1-711), $9,892,000 
     from the earnings of the applicable retirement funds to pay 
     legal, management, investment, and other fees and 
     administrative expenses of the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board: Provided, That the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board shall provide to the Congress and to the 
     Council of the District of Columbia a quarterly report of the 
     allocations of charges by fund and of expenditures of all 
     funds: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board shall provide the Mayor, for transmittal to 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, an itemized 
     accounting of the planned use of appropriated funds in time 
     for each annual budget submission and the actual use of such 
     funds in time for each annual audited financial report: 
     Provided further, That section 121(c)(1) of the District of 
     Columbia Retirement Reform Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-711(c)(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``the total amount to which a member 
     may be entitled'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``the total amount to which a member may be 
     entitled under this subsection during a year (beginning with 
     1998) may not exceed $5,000, except that in the case of the 
     Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Investment 
     Committee of the Board, such amount may not exceed $7,500 
     (beginning with 2000).''.

                      Correctional Industries Fund

       For the Correctional Industries Fund, established by the 
     District of Columbia Correctional Industries Establishment 
     Act (78 Stat. 1000; Public Law 88-622), $1,810,000 from other 
     funds.

              Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund

       For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund, 
     $50,226,000 from other funds.

                             Capital Outlay


                        (Including Rescissions)

       For construction projects, $1,260,524,000 of which 
     $929,450,000 is from local funds, $54,050,000 is from the 
     highway trust fund, and $277,024,000 is from Federal funds, 
     and a rescission of $41,886,500 from local funds appropriated 
     under this heading in prior fiscal years, for a net amount of 
     $1,218,637,500 to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds for use of each capital project implementing 
     agency shall be managed and controlled in accordance with all 
     procedures and limitations established under the Financial 
     Management System: Provided further, That all funds provided 
     by this appropriation title shall be available only for the 
     specific projects and purposes intended: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding the foregoing, all authorizations for 
     capital outlay projects, except those projects covered by the 
     first sentence of section 23(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway 
     Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 827; Public Law 90-495; D.C. Code, sec. 
     7-134, note), for which funds are provided by this 
     appropriation title, shall expire on September 30, 2001, 
     except authorizations for projects as to which funds have 
     been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30, 
     2001: Provided further, That upon expiration of any such 
     project authorization, the funds provided herein for the 
     project shall lapse.

                           General Provisions

       Sec. 101. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 102. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all 
     vouchers covering expenditures of appropriations contained in 
     this Act shall be audited before payment by the designated 
     certifying official, and the vouchers as approved shall be 
     paid by checks issued by the designated disbursing official.
       Sec. 103. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified 
     within an appropriation for particular purposes or objects of 
     expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified, shall 
     be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for 
     said purpose or object rather than an amount set apart 
     exclusively therefor.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations in this Act shall be available, 
     when authorized by the Mayor, for allowances for privately 
     owned automobiles and motorcycles used for the performance of 
     official duties at rates established by the Mayor: Provided, 
     That such rates shall not exceed the maximum prevailing rates 
     for such vehicles as prescribed in the Federal Property 
     Management Regulations 101-7 (Federal Travel Regulations).
       Sec. 105. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of 
     organizations concerned with the work of the District of 
     Columbia government, when authorized by the

[[Page H10094]]

     Mayor: Provided, That in the case of the Council of the 
     District of Columbia, funds may be expended with the 
     authorization of the chair of the Council.
       Sec. 106. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have 
     been entered against the District of Columbia government: 
     Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be 
     construed as modifying or affecting the provisions of section 
     11(c)(3) of title XII of the District of Columbia Income and 
     Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (70 Stat. 78; Public Law 84-460; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
       Sec. 107. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     the payment of public assistance without reference to the 
     requirement of section 544 of the District of Columbia Public 
     Assistance Act of 1982 (D.C. Law 4-101; D.C. Code, sec. 3-
     205.44), and for the payment of the non-Federal share of 
     funds necessary to qualify for grants under subtitle A of 
     title II of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994.
       Sec. 108. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 109. No funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     District of Columbia government for the operation of 
     educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or 
     for other educational purposes may be used to permit, 
     encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political 
     activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the 
     availability of school buildings for the use of any community 
     or partisan political group during non-school hours.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the 
     District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade, 
     salary, past work experience, and salary history are not 
     available for inspection by the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on the District of 
     Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform, the 
     Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
     Restructuring and the District of Columbia of the Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Council of the 
     District of Columbia, or their duly authorized 
     representative.
       Sec. 111. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making payments authorized by the District of Columbia 
     Revenue Recovery Act of 1977 (D.C. Law 2-20; D.C. Code, sec. 
     47-421 et seq.).
       Sec. 112. No part of this appropriation shall be used for 
     publicity or propaganda purposes or implementation of any 
     policy including boycott designed to support or defeat 
     legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature.
       Sec. 113. At the start of the fiscal year, the Mayor shall 
     develop an annual plan, by quarter and by project, for 
     capital outlay borrowings: Provided, That within a reasonable 
     time after the close of each quarter, the Mayor shall report 
     to the Council of the District of Columbia and the Congress 
     the actual borrowings and spending progress compared with 
     projections.
       Sec. 114. The Mayor shall not borrow any funds for capital 
     projects unless the Mayor has obtained prior approval from 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, by resolution, 
     identifying the projects and amounts to be financed with such 
     borrowings.
       Sec. 115. The Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed 
     for capital projects for the operating expenses of the 
     District of Columbia government.
       Sec. 116. None of the funds provided under this Act to the 
     agencies funded by this Act, both Federal and District 
     government agencies, that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2000, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for an 
     agency through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates 
     new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or 
     responsibility center; (3) establishes or changes allocations 
     specifically denied, limited or increased by Congress in the 
     Act; (4) increases funds or personnel by any means for any 
     program, project, or responsibility center for which funds 
     have been denied or restricted; (5) reestablishes through 
     reprogramming any program or project previously deferred 
     through reprogramming; (6) augments existing programs, 
     projects, or responsibility centers through a reprogramming 
     of funds in excess of $1,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is 
     less; or (7) increases by 20 percent or more personnel 
     assigned to a specific program, project, or responsibility 
     center; unless the Appropriations Committees of both the 
     Senate and House of Representatives are notified in writing 
     30 days in advance of any reprogramming as set forth in this 
     section.
       Sec. 117. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of the District of Columbia government.
       Sec. 118. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to procure passenger 
     automobiles as defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act 
     of 1980 (94 Stat. 1824; Public Law 96-425; 15 U.S.C. 
     2001(2)), with an Environmental Protection Agency estimated 
     miles per gallon average of less than 22 miles per gallon: 
     Provided, That this section shall not apply to security, 
     emergency rescue, or armored vehicles.
       Sec. 119. (a) City Administrator.--The last sentence of 
     section 422(7) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(7)) is amended by striking ``, not to 
     exceed'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
       (b) Board of Directors of Redevelopment Land Agency.--
     Section 1108(c)(2)(F) of the District of Columbia Government 
     Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     612.8(c)(2)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(F) Redevelopment Land Agency board members shall be paid 
     per diem compensation at a rate established by the Mayor, 
     except that such rate may not exceed the daily equivalent of 
     the annual rate of basic pay for level 15 of the District 
     Schedule for each day (including travel time) during which 
     they are engaged in the actual performance of their 
     duties.''.
       Sec. 120. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     provisions of the District of Columbia Government 
     Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Law 2-139; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), enacted pursuant to section 
     422(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat. 
     790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(3)), shall 
     apply with respect to the compensation of District of 
     Columbia employees: Provided, That for pay purposes, 
     employees of the District of Columbia government shall not be 
     subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 121. No later than 30 days after the end of the first 
     quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council 
     of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 2000 revenue 
     estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 
     2000. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. The officially 
     revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear 
     report.
       Sec. 122. No sole source contract with the District of 
     Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or 
     extended without opening that contract to the competitive 
     bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District 
     of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. Law 6-85; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 1-1183.3), except that the District of 
     Columbia government or any agency thereof may renew or extend 
     sole source contracts for which competition is not feasible 
     or practical: Provided, That the determination as to whether 
     to invoke the competitive bidding process has been made in 
     accordance with duly promulgated rules and procedures and 
     said determination has been reviewed and approved by the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority.
       Sec. 123. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-
     177), the term ``program, project, and activity'' shall be 
     synonymous with and refer specifically to each account 
     appropriating Federal funds in this Act, and any 
     sequestration order shall be applied to each of the accounts 
     rather than to the aggregate total of those accounts: 
     Provided, That sequestration orders shall not be applied to 
     any account that is specifically exempted from sequestration 
     by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       Sec. 124. In the event a sequestration order is issued 
     pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037: Public Law 99-177), after the 
     amounts appropriated to the District of Columbia for the 
     fiscal year involved have been paid to the District of 
     Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall pay to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, within 15 days after receipt 
     of a request therefor from the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     such amounts as are sequestered by the order: Provided, That 
     the sequestration percentage specified in the order shall be 
     applied proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation 
     accounts in this Act that are not specifically exempted from 
     sequestration by such Act.
       Sec. 125. (a) An entity of the District of Columbia 
     government may accept and use a gift or donation during 
     fiscal year 2000 if--
       (1) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift 
     or donation: Provided, That the Council of the District of 
     Columbia may accept and use gifts without prior approval by 
     the Mayor; and
       (2) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its 
     authorized functions or duties.
       (b) Each entity of the District of Columbia government 
     shall keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance 
     and use of any gift or donation under subsection (a) of this 
     section, and shall make such records available for audit and 
     public inspection.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``entity of 
     the District of Columbia government'' includes an independent 
     agency of the District of Columbia.
       (d) This section shall not apply to the District of 
     Columbia Board of Education, which may, pursuant to the laws 
     and regulations of the District of Columbia, accept and use 
     gifts to the public schools without prior approval by the 
     Mayor.
       Sec. 126. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for 
     salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the 
     offices of United States Senator or United States 
     Representative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia 
     Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979 (D.C. 
     Law 3-171; D.C. Code, sec. 1-113(d)).

[[Page H10095]]

       Sec. 127. (a) The University of the District of Columbia 
     shall submit to the Mayor, the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and the 
     Council of the District of Columbia no later than 15 calendar 
     days after the end of each quarter a report that sets forth--
       (1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
     date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year 
     expenditure projections versus budget broken out on the basis 
     of control center, responsibility center, and object class, 
     and for all funds, non-appropriated funds, and capital 
     financing;
       (2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center, 
     responsibility center, detailed object, and for all funding 
     sources;
       (3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000 
     annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the 
     budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the 
     basis of control center and responsibility center, and 
     contract identifying codes used by the University of the 
     District of Columbia; payments made in the last quarter and 
     year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total 
     payments made for the contract and any modifications, 
     extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each 
     contract in the last month;
       (4) all reprogramming requests and reports that have been 
     made by the University of the District of Columbia within the 
     last quarter in compliance with applicable law; and
       (5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational 
     structure of the University of the District of Columbia, 
     displaying previous and current control centers and 
     responsibility centers, the names of the organizational 
     entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member 
     supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the 
     structural change.
       (b) The Mayor, the Authority, and the Council shall provide 
     the Congress by February 1, 2000, a summary, analysis, and 
     recommendations on the information provided in the quarterly 
     reports.
       Sec. 128. Funds authorized or previously appropriated to 
     the government of the District of Columbia by this or any 
     other Act to procure the necessary hardware and installation 
     of new software, conversion, testing, and training to improve 
     or replace its financial management system are also available 
     for the acquisition of accounting and financial management 
     services and the leasing of necessary hardware, software or 
     any other related goods or services, as determined by the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority.
       Sec. 129. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     made available to pay the fees of an attorney who represents 
     a party who prevails in an action, including an 
     administrative proceeding, brought against the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) if--
       (1) the hourly rate of compensation of the attorney exceeds 
     120% of the hourly rate of compensation under section 11-
     2604(a), District of Columbia Code; or
       (2) the maximum amount of compensation of the attorney 
     exceeds 120% of the maximum amount of compensation under 
     section 11-2604(b)(1), District of Columbia Code, except that 
     compensation and reimbursement in excess of such maximum may 
     be approved for extended or complex representation in 
     accordance with section 11-2604(c), District of Columbia 
     Code.
       Sec. 130. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of 
     the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
     term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape 
     or incest.
       Sec. 131. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits 
     Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-
     1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system 
     of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether 
     homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not 
     limited to registration for the purpose of extending 
     employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples 
     on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally 
     married couples.
       Sec. 132. The Superintendent of the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools shall submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, and the Council of the District of 
     Columbia no later than 15 calendar days after the end of each 
     quarter a report that sets forth--
       (1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
     date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year 
     expenditure projections versus budget, broken out on the 
     basis of control center, responsibility center, agency 
     reporting code, and object class, and for all funds, 
     including capital financing;
       (2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center, 
     responsibility center, detailed object, and agency reporting 
     code, and for all funding sources;
       (3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000 
     annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the 
     budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the 
     basis of control center, responsibility center, and agency 
     reporting code; and contract identifying codes used by the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools; payments made in the 
     last quarter and year-to-date, the total amount of the 
     contract and total payments made for the contract and any 
     modifications, extensions, renewals; and specific 
     modifications made to each contract in the last month;
       (4) all reprogramming requests and reports that are 
     required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of 
     Education; and
       (5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational 
     structure of the District of Columbia Public Schools, 
     displaying previous and current control centers and 
     responsibility centers, the names of the organizational 
     entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member 
     supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the 
     structural change.
       Sec. 133. (a) In General.--The Superintendent of the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools and the University of the 
     District of Columbia shall annually compile an accurate and 
     verifiable report on the positions and employees in the 
     public school system and the university, respectively. The 
     annual report shall set forth--
       (1) the number of validated schedule A positions in the 
     District of Columbia public schools and the University of the 
     District of Columbia for fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, 
     and thereafter on full-time equivalent basis, including a 
     compilation of all positions by control center, 
     responsibility center, funding source, position type, 
     position title, pay plan, grade, and annual salary; and
       (2) a compilation of all employees in the District of 
     Columbia public schools and the University of the District of 
     Columbia as of the preceding December 31, verified as to its 
     accuracy in accordance with the functions that each employee 
     actually performs, by control center, responsibility center, 
     agency reporting code, program (including funding source), 
     activity, location for accounting purposes, job title, grade 
     and classification, annual salary, and position control 
     number.
       (b) Submission.--The annual report required by subsection 
     (a) of this section shall be submitted to the Congress, the 
     Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the Consensus 
     Commission, and the Authority, not later than February 15 of 
     each year.
       Sec. 134. (a) No later than November 1, 1999, or within 30 
     calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     whichever occurs later, and each succeeding year, the 
     Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools and 
     the University of the District of Columbia shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees, the Mayor, the 
     District of Columbia Council, the Consensus Commission, and 
     the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority, a revised appropriated funds 
     operating budget for the public school system and the 
     University of the District of Columbia for such fiscal year 
     that is in the total amount of the approved appropriation and 
     that realigns budgeted data for personal services and other-
     than-personal services, respectively, with anticipated actual 
     expenditures.
       (b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this 
     section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that 
     the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools 
     and the University of the District of Columbia submit to the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia for inclusion in the 
     Mayor's budget submission to the Council of the District of 
     Columbia pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).
       Sec. 135. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority, acting on behalf of the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools [DCPS] in formulating the 
     DCPS budget, the Board of Trustees of the University of the 
     District of Columbia, the Board of Library Trustees, and the 
     Board of Governors of the University of the District of 
     Columbia School of Law shall vote on and approve the 
     respective annual or revised budgets for such entities before 
     submission to the Mayor of the District of Columbia for 
     inclusion in the Mayor's budget submission to the Council of 
     the District of Columbia in accordance with section 442 of 
     the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 47-301), or before submitting their 
     respective budgets directly to the Council.
       Sec. 136. (a) Ceiling on Total Operating Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the total amount appropriated in this Act for operating 
     expenses for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2000 
     under the caption ``Division of Expenses'' shall not exceed 
     the lesser of--
       (A) the sum of the total revenues of the District of 
     Columbia for such fiscal year; or
       (B) $5,515,379,000 (of which $152,753,000 shall be from 
     intra-District funds and $3,113,854,000 shall be from local 
     funds), which amount may be increased by the following:
       (i) proceeds of one-time transactions, which are expended 
     for emergency or unanticipated operating or capital needs 
     approved by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority; or
       (ii) after notification to the Council, additional 
     expenditures which the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia certifies will produce additional 
     revenues during such fiscal year at least equal to 200 
     percent of such additional expenditures, and that are 
     approved by the Authority.

[[Page H10096]]

       (2) Enforcement.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia and the Authority shall take such steps 
     as are necessary to assure that the District of Columbia 
     meets the requirements of this section, including the 
     apportioning by the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     appropriations and funds made available to the District 
     during fiscal year 2000, except that the Chief Financial 
     Officer may not reprogram for operating expenses any funds 
     derived from bonds, notes, or other obligations issued for 
     capital projects.
       (b) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in Ceiling.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Mayor, 
     in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer, during a 
     control year, as defined in section 305(4) of the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8; 109 Stat. 152), may accept, 
     obligate, and expend Federal, private, and other grants 
     received by the District government that are not reflected in 
     the amounts appropriated in this Act.
       (2) Requirement of chief financial officer report and 
     authority approval.--No such Federal, private, or other grant 
     may be accepted, obligated, or expended pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) until--
       (A) the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     submits to the Authority a report setting forth detailed 
     information regarding such grant; and
       (B) the Authority has reviewed and approved the acceptance, 
     obligation, and expenditure of such grant in accordance with 
     review and approval procedures consistent with the provisions 
     of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Act of 1995.
       (3) Prohibition on spending in anticipation of approval or 
     receipt.--No amount may be obligated or expended from the 
     general fund or other funds of the District government in 
     anticipation of the approval or receipt of a grant under 
     paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection or in anticipation of the 
     approval or receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not 
     subject to such paragraph.
       (4) Quarterly reports.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia shall prepare a quarterly report setting 
     forth detailed information regarding all Federal, private, 
     and other grants subject to this subsection. Each such report 
     shall be submitted to the Council of the District of 
     Columbia, and to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 15 
     days after the end of the quarter covered by the report.
       (c) Report on Expenditures by Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority.--Not later than 20 calendar 
     days after the end of each fiscal quarter starting October 1, 
     1999, the Authority shall submit a report to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House, and 
     the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate providing 
     an itemized accounting of all non-appropriated funds 
     obligated or expended by the Authority for the quarter. The 
     report shall include information on the date, amount, 
     purpose, and vendor name, and a description of the services 
     or goods provided with respect to the expenditures of such 
     funds.
       Sec. 137. If a department or agency of the government of 
     the District of Columbia is under the administration of a 
     court-appointed receiver or other court-appointed official 
     during fiscal year 2000 or any succeeding fiscal year, the 
     receiver or official shall prepare and submit to the Mayor, 
     for inclusion in the annual budget of the District of 
     Columbia for the year, annual estimates of the expenditures 
     and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and 
     operation of the department or agency. All such estimates 
     shall be forwarded by the Mayor to the Council, for its 
     action pursuant to sections 446 and 603(c) of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act, without revision but subject to the 
     Mayor's recommendations. Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat. 774; Public Law 
     93-198) the Council may comment or make recommendations 
     concerning such annual estimates but shall have no authority 
     under such Act to revise such estimates.
       Sec. 138. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     rule, or regulation, an employee of the District of Columbia 
     public schools shall be--
       (1) classified as an Educational Service employee;
       (2) placed under the personnel authority of the Board of 
     Education; and
       (3) subject to all Board of Education rules.
       (b) School-based personnel shall constitute a separate 
     competitive area from nonschool-based personnel who shall not 
     compete with school-based personnel for retention purposes.
       Sec. 139. (a) Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles.--
     Except as otherwise provided in this section, none of the 
     funds made available by this Act or by any other Act may be 
     used to provide any officer or employee of the District of 
     Columbia with an official vehicle unless the officer or 
     employee uses the vehicle only in the performance of the 
     officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term ``official duties'' does not include 
     travel between the officer's or employee's residence and 
     workplace (except: (1) in the case of an officer or employee 
     of the Metropolitan Police Department who resides in the 
     District of Columbia or is otherwise designated by the Chief 
     of the Department; (2) at the discretion of the Fire Chief, 
     an officer or employee of the District of Columbia Fire and 
     Emergency Medical Services Department who resides in the 
     District of Columbia and is on call 24 hours a day; (3) the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia; and (4) the Chairman of 
     the Council of the District of Columbia).
       (b) Inventory of Vehicles.--The Chief Financial Officer of 
     the District of Columbia shall submit, by November 15, 1999, 
     an inventory, as of September 30, 1999, of all vehicles 
     owned, leased or operated by the District of Columbia 
     government. The inventory shall include, but not be limited 
     to, the department to which the vehicle is assigned; the year 
     and make of the vehicle; the acquisition date and cost; the 
     general condition of the vehicle; annual operating and 
     maintenance costs; current mileage; and whether the vehicle 
     is allowed to be taken home by a District officer or employee 
     and if so, the officer or employee's title and resident 
     location.
       Sec. 140. (a) Source of Payment for Employees Detailed 
     Within Government.--For purposes of determining the amount of 
     funds expended by any entity within the District of Columbia 
     government during fiscal year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year, any expenditures of the District government 
     attributable to any officer or employee of the District 
     government who provides services which are within the 
     authority and jurisdiction of the entity (including any 
     portion of the compensation paid to the officer or employee 
     attributable to the time spent in providing such services) 
     shall be treated as expenditures made from the entity's 
     budget, without regard to whether the officer or employee is 
     assigned to the entity or otherwise treated as an officer or 
     employee of the entity.
       (b) Modification of Reduction in Force Procedures.--The 
     District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel 
     Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), is further 
     amended in section 2408(a) by deleting ``1999'' and 
     inserting, ``2000''; in subsection (b), by deleting ``1999'' 
     and inserting ``2000''; in subsection (i), by deleting 
     ``1999'' and inserting, ``2000''; and in subsection (k), by 
     deleting ``1999'' and inserting, ``2000''.
       Sec. 141. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     later than 120 days after the date that a District of 
     Columbia Public Schools [DCPS] student is referred for 
     evaluation or assessment--
       (1) the District of Columbia Board of Education, or its 
     successor, and DCPS shall assess or evaluate a student who 
     may have a disability and who may require special education 
     services; and
       (2) if a student is classified as having a disability, as 
     defined in section 101(a)(1) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (84 Stat. 175; 20 U.S.C. 
     1401(a)(1)) or in section 7(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (87 Stat. 359; 29 U.S.C. 706(8)), the Board and DCPS 
     shall place that student in an appropriate program of special 
     education services.
       Sec. 142. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of the Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each agency of the Federal or District of 
     Columbia government shall provide to each recipient of the 
     assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 143. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the 
     District of Columbia government (including the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority) for fiscal year 2000 unless--
       (1) the audit is conducted by the Inspector General of the 
     District of Columbia pursuant to section 208(a)(4) of the 
     District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 1-1182.8(a)(4)); and
       (2) the audit includes a comparison of audited actual year-
     end results with the revenues submitted in the budget 
     document for such year and the appropriations enacted into 
     law for such year.

[[Page H10097]]

       Sec. 144. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     authorize any office, agency or entity to expend funds for 
     programs or functions for which a reorganization plan is 
     required but has not been approved by the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority. Appropriations made by this Act for such programs 
     or functions are conditioned only on the approval by the 
     Authority of the required reorganization plans.
       Sec. 145. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
     or regulation, the evaluation process and instruments for 
     evaluating District of Columbia Public School employees shall 
     be a non-negotiable item for collective bargaining purposes.
       Sec. 146. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or any 
     other officer or entity of the District government to provide 
     assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks 
     to require Congress to provide for voting representation in 
     Congress for the District of Columbia.
       Sec. 147. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used to transfer or confine inmates classified above the 
     medium security level, as defined by the Federal Bureau of 
     Prisons classification instrument, to the Northeast Ohio 
     Correctional Center located in Youngstown, Ohio.
       Sec. 148. (a) Section 202(i) of the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 
     1995 (Public Law 104-8), as added by Section 155 of the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(j) Reserve.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the 
     plan or budget submitted pursuant to this Act shall contain 
     $150,000,000 for a reserve to be established by the Mayor, 
     Council of the District of Columbia, Chief Financial Officer 
     for the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.
       ``(2) Conditions on use.--The reserve funds--
       ``(A) shall only be expended according to criteria 
     established by the Chief Financial Officer and approved by 
     the Mayor, Council of the District of Columbia, and District 
     of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, but, in no case may any of the reserve 
     funds be expended until any other surplus funds have been 
     used;
       ``(B) shall not be used to fund the agencies of the 
     District of Columbia government under court ordered 
     receivership; and
       ``(C) shall not be used to fund shortfalls in the projected 
     reductions budgeted in the budget proposed by the District of 
     Columbia government for general supply schedule savings and 
     management reform savings.
       ``(3) Report requirement.--The Authority shall notify the 
     Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and House of 
     Representatives in writing 30 days in advance of any 
     expenditure of the reserve funds.''.
       (b) Section 202 of such act (Public Law 104-8), as amended 
     by subsection (a), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(k) Positive Fund Balance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia shall maintain 
     at the end of a fiscal year an annual positive fund balance 
     in the general fund of not less than 4 percent of the 
     projected general fund expenditures for the following fiscal 
     year.
       ``(2) Excess funds.--Of funds remaining in excess of the 
     amounts required by paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) not more than 50 percent may be used for authorized 
     non-recurring expenses; and
       ``(B) not less than 50 percent shall be used to reduce the 
     debt of the District of Columbia.''.
       Sec. 149. (a) No later than November 1, 1999, or within 30 
     calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     whichever occurs later, the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, the Mayor, and the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority a revised appropriated funds operating budget for 
     all agencies of the District of Columbia government for such 
     fiscal year that is in the total amount of the approved 
     appropriation and that realigns budgeted data for personal 
     services and other-than-personal-services, respectively, with 
     anticipated actual expenditures.
       (b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this 
     section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that 
     the District of Columbia government submitted pursuant to 
     section 442 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public 
     Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).
       Sec. 150. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used for any program of distributing sterile needles or 
     syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug, or 
     for any payment to any individual or entity who carries out 
     any such program.
       Sec. 151. (a) Restrictions.--None of the funds contained in 
     this Act may be used to make rental payments under a lease 
     for the use of real property by the District of Columbia 
     government (including any independent agency of the District) 
     unless--
       (1) the lease and an abstract of the lease have been filed 
     with the central office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic 
     Development; and
       (2)(A) the District of Columbia government occupies the 
     property during the period of time covered by the rental 
     payment; or
       (B) within 60 days of the enactment of this Act the Mayor 
     certifies to Congress and the landlord that occupancy is 
     impracticable and submits with the certification a plan to 
     terminate or renegotiate the lease or rental agreement; or
       (C) within 60 days of the enactment of this Act the Council 
     certifies to Congress and the landlord that occupancy is 
     impracticable and submits with the certification a plan to 
     terminate or renegotiate the lease or rental agreement.
       (b) Unoccupied Property.--After 120 days from the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, none of the funds contained in 
     this Act may be used to make rental payments for property 
     described in subsections (a)(2)(B) or (a)(2)(C) of this 
     section.
       (c) Semi-Annual Reports by Mayor.--Not later than 20 days 
     after the end of each 6-month period that begins on October 
     1, 1999, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit a 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate listing the leases for the use 
     of real property by the District of Columbia government that 
     were in effect during the 6-month period, and including for 
     each such lease the location of the property, the name of any 
     person with any ownership interest in the property, the rate 
     of payment, the period of time covered by the lease, and the 
     conditions under which the lease may be terminated.
       Sec. 152. None of the funds contained in this Act or the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, may be used to 
     enter into a lease on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act (or to make rental payments under such a lease) for 
     the use of real property by the District of Columbia 
     government (including any independent agency of the District) 
     or to purchase real property for the use of the District of 
     Columbia government (including any independent agency of the 
     District) or to manage real property for the use of the 
     District of Columbia (including any independent agency of the 
     District) unless--
       (1) the Mayor and Council certify to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     that existing real property available to the District 
     (whether leased or owned by the District government) is not 
     suitable for the purposes intended;
       (2) notwithstanding any other provisions of law, there is 
     made available for sale or lease all property of the District 
     of Columbia which the Mayor and Council from time to time 
     determine is surplus to the needs of the District of 
     Columbia;
       (3) the Mayor and Council implement a program for the 
     periodic survey of all District property to determine if it 
     is surplus to the needs of the District; and
       (4) the Mayor and Council within 60 days of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act has filed a report with the 
     appropriations and authorizing committees of the House and 
     Senate providing a comprehensive plan for the management of 
     District of Columbia real property assets and is proceeding 
     with the implementation of the plan.
       Sec. 153. Section 603(e)(2)(B) of the Student Loan 
     Marketing Association Reorganization Act of 1996 (Public Law 
     104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-293) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and public charter'' after ``public''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``Of such amounts 
     and proceeds, $5,000,000 shall be set aside for use as a 
     credit enhancement fund for public charter schools in the 
     District of Columbia, with the administration of the fund 
     (including the making of loans) to be carried out by the 
     Mayor through a committee consisting of 3 individuals 
     appointed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and 2 
     individuals appointed by the Public Charter School Board 
     established under section 2214 of the District of Columbia 
     School Reform Act of 1995.''.
       Sec. 154. The Mayor, District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and the 
     Superintendent of Schools shall implement a process to 
     dispose of excess public school real property within 90 days 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 155. Section 2003 of the District of Columbia School 
     Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; D.C. Code, sec. 31-
     2851) is amended by striking ``during the period'' and ``and 
     ending 5 years after such date.''.
       Sec. 156. Section 2206(c) of the District of Columbia 
     School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; D.C. Code, 
     sec. 31-2853.16(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``, except that a preference in admission may be 
     given to an applicant who is a sibling of a student already 
     attending or selected for admission to the public charter 
     school in which the applicant is seeking enrollment.''
       Sec. 157. (a) Transfer of Funds.--There is hereby 
     transferred from the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (hereafter 
     referred to as the ``Authority'') to the District of Columbia 
     the sum of $18,000,000 for severance payments to individuals 
     separated from employment during fiscal year 2000 (under such 
     terms and conditions as the Mayor considers appropriate), 
     expanded contracting authority of the Mayor, and the 
     implementation of a system of managed competition among 
     public and private providers of goods and services by and on 
     behalf of the District of Columbia: Provided, That such funds 
     shall be used only in accordance with a plan agreed to by the 
     Council and the Mayor and

[[Page H10098]]

     approved by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate: Provided further, That the 
     Authority and the Mayor shall coordinate the spending of 
     funds for this program so that continuous progress is made. 
     The Authority shall release said funds, on a quarterly basis, 
     to reimburse such expenses, so long as the Authority 
     certifies that the expenses reduce re-occurring future costs 
     at an annual ratio of at least 2 to 1 relative to the funds 
     provided, and that the program is in accordance with the best 
     practices of municipal government.
       (b) Source of Funds.--The amount transferred under 
     subsection (a) shall be derived from interest earned on 
     accounts held by the Authority on behalf of the District of 
     Columbia.
       Sec. 158. (a) In General.--The District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority 
     (hereafter referred to as the ``Authority''), working with 
     the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Director of the National 
     Park Service, shall carry out a project to complete all 
     design requirements and all requirements for compliance with 
     the National Environmental Policy Act for the construction of 
     expanded lane capacity for the Fourteenth Street Bridge.
       (b) Source of Funds; Transfer.--For purposes of carrying 
     out the project under subsection (a), there is hereby 
     transferred to the Authority from the District of Columbia 
     dedicated highway fund established pursuant to section 3(a) 
     of the District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act 
     (Public Law 104-21; D.C. Code, sec. 7-134.2(a)) an amount not 
     to exceed $5,000,000.
       Sec. 159. (a) In General.--The Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia shall carry out through the Army Corps of Engineers, 
     an Anacostia River environmental cleanup program.
       (b) Source of Funds.--There are hereby transferred to the 
     Mayor from the escrow account held by the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority pursuant to section 134 of division A of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-
     552), for infrastructure needs of the District of Columbia, 
     $5,000,000.
       Sec. 160. (a) Prohibiting Payment of Administrative Costs 
     From Fund.--Section 16(e) of the Victims of Violent Crime 
     Compensation Act of 1996 (D.C. Code, sec. 3-435(e)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and administrative costs necessary to 
     carry out this chapter''; and
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, and no monies in the Fund may be used for any 
     other purpose.''.
       (b) Maintenance of Fund in Treasury of the United States.--
       (1) In general.--Section 16(a) of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 
     3-435(a)) is amended by striking the second sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``The Fund shall be maintained as a 
     separate fund in the Treasury of the United States. All 
     amounts deposited to the credit of the Fund are appropriated 
     without fiscal year limitation to make payments as authorized 
     under subsection (e).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 16 of such Act (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 3-435) is amended by striking subsection (d).
       (c) Deposit of Other Fees and Receipts Into Fund.--Section 
     16(c) of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 3-435(c)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``1997,'' the second place it appears the 
     following: ``any other fines, fees, penalties, or assessments 
     that the Court determines necessary to carry out the purposes 
     of the Fund,''.
       (d) Annual Transfer of Unobligated Balances to 
     Miscellaneous Receipts of Treasury.--Section 16 of such Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 3-435), as amended by subsection (b)(2), is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Any unobligated balance existing in the Fund in 
     excess of $250,000 as of the end of each fiscal year 
     (beginning with fiscal year 2000) shall be transferred to 
     miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury of the United States 
     not later than 30 days after the end of the fiscal year.''.
       (e) Ratification of Payments and Deposits.--Any payments 
     made from or deposits made to the Crime Victims Compensation 
     Fund on or after April 9, 1997 are hereby ratified, to the 
     extent such payments and deposits are authorized under the 
     Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Act of 1996 (D.C. Code, 
     sec. 3-421 et seq.), as amended by this section.
       Sec. 161. Certification.--None of the funds contained in 
     this Act may be used after the expiration of the 60-day 
     period that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     to pay the salary of any chief financial officer of any 
     office of the District of Columbia government (including any 
     independent agency of the District) who has not filed a 
     certification with the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer 
     of the District of Columbia that the officer understands the 
     duties and restrictions applicable to the officer and their 
     agency as a result of this Act.
       Sec. 162. The proposed budget of the government of the 
     District of Columbia for fiscal year 2001 that is submitted 
     by the District to Congress shall specify potential 
     adjustments that might become necessary in the event that the 
     management savings achieved by the District during the year 
     do not meet the level of management savings projected by the 
     District under the proposed budget.
       Sec. 163. In submitting any document showing the budget for 
     an office of the District of Columbia government (including 
     an independent agency of the District) that contains a 
     category of activities labeled as ``other'', 
     ``miscellaneous'', or a similar general, nondescriptive term, 
     the document shall include a description of the types of 
     activities covered in the category and a detailed breakdown 
     of the amount allocated for each such activity.
       Sec. 164. (a) Authorizing Corps of Engineers To Perform 
     Repairs and Improvements.--In using the funds made available 
     under this Act for carrying out improvements to the Southwest 
     Waterfront in the District of Columbia (including upgrading 
     marina dock pilings and paving and restoring walkways in the 
     marina and fish market areas) for the portions of Federal 
     property in the Southwest quadrant of the District of 
     Columbia within Lots 847 and 848, a portion of Lot 846, and 
     the unassessed Federal real property adjacent to Lot 848 in 
     Square 473, any entity of the District of Columbia government 
     (including the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority or its designee) may 
     place orders for engineering and construction and related 
     services with the Chief of Engineers of the United States 
     Army Corps of Engineers. The Chief of Engineers may accept 
     such orders on a reimbursable basis and may provide any part 
     of such services by contract. In providing such services, the 
     Chief of Engineers shall follow the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations and the implementing Department of Defense 
     regulations.
       (b) Timing for Availability of Funds Under 1999 Act.--
       (1) In general.--The District of Columbia Appropriations 
     Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-124) is amended 
     in the item relating to ``FEDERAL FUNDS--Federal Payment for 
     Waterfront Improvements''--
       (A) by striking ``existing lessees'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``existing lessees of the Marina''; and
       (B) by striking ``the existing lessees'' the second place 
     it appears and inserting ``such lessees''.
       (2) Effective date.--This subsection shall take effect as 
     if included in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
     1999.
       (c) Additional Funding for Improvements Carried Out Through 
     Corps of Engineers.--
       (1) In general.--There is hereby transferred from the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority to the Mayor the sum of $3,000,000 for 
     carrying out the improvements described in subsection (a) 
     through the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army 
     Corps of Engineers.
       (2) Source of funds.--The funds transferred under paragraph 
     (1) shall be derived from the escrow account held by the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority pursuant to section 134 of division A of 
     the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-
     552), for infrastructure needs of the District of Columbia.
       (d) Quarterly Reports on Project.--The Mayor shall submit 
     reports to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate on the status of the improvements described in 
     subsection (a) for each calendar quarter occurring until the 
     improvements are completed.
       Sec. 165. It is the sense of the Congress that the District 
     of Columbia should not impose or take into consideration any 
     height, square footage, set-back, or other construction or 
     zoning requirements in authorizing the issuance of industrial 
     revenue bonds for a project of the American National Red 
     Cross at 2025 E Street Northwest, Washington, D.C., in as 
     much as this project is subject to approval of the National 
     Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts 
     pursuant to section 11 of the joint resolution entitled 
     ``Joint Resolution to grant authority for the erection of a 
     permanent building for the American National Red Cross, 
     District of Columbia Chapter, Washington, District of 
     Columbia'', approved July 1, 1947 (Public Law 100-637; 36 
     U.S.C. 300108 note).
       Sec. 166. (a) Permitting Court Services and Offender 
     Supervision Agency To Carry Out Sex Offender Registration.--
     Section 11233(c) of the National Capital Revitalization and 
     Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 24-
     1233(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Sex offender registration.--The Agency shall carry 
     out sex offender registration functions in the District of 
     Columbia, and shall have the authority to exercise all powers 
     and functions relating to sex offender registration that are 
     granted to the Agency under any District of Columbia law.''.
       (b) Authority During Transition to Full Operation of 
     Agency.--
       (1) Authority of pretrial services, parole, adult probation 
     and offender supervision trustee.--Notwithstanding section 
     11232(b)(1) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
     Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 24-
     1232(b)(1)), the Pretrial Services, Parole, Adult Probation 
     and Offender Supervision Trustee appointed under section 
     11232(a) of such Act (hereafter referred to as the 
     ``Trustee'') shall, in accordance with section 11232 of such 
     Act, exercise the powers and functions of the Court Services 
     and Offender Supervision Agency

[[Page H10099]]

     for the District of Columbia (hereafter referred to as the 
     ``Agency'') relating to sex offender registration (as granted 
     to the Agency under any District of Columbia law) only upon 
     the Trustee's certification that the Trustee is able to 
     assume such powers and functions.
       (2) Authority of metropolitan police department.--During 
     the period that begins on the date of the enactment of the 
     Sex Offender Registration Emergency Act of 1999 and ends on 
     the date the Trustee makes the certification described in 
     paragraph (1), the Metropolitan Police Department of the 
     District of Columbia shall have the authority to carry out 
     any powers and functions relating to sex offender 
     registration that are granted to the Agency or to the Trustee 
     under any District of Columbia law.
       Sec. 167. (a) 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.
       (b) 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.
       Sec. 168. (a) In General.--There is hereby transferred from 
     the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority (hereinafter referred to as 
     the ``Authority'') to the District of Columbia the sum of 
     $5,000,000 for the Mayor, in consultation with the Council of 
     the District of Columbia, to provide offsets against local 
     taxes for a commercial revitalization program, such program 
     to be available in enterprise zones and low and moderate 
     income areas in the District of Columbia: Provided, That in 
     carrying out such a program, the Mayor shall use Federal 
     commercial revitalization proposals introduced in Congress as 
     a guideline.
       (b) Source of Funds.--The amount transferred under 
     subsection (a) shall be derived from interest earned on 
     accounts held by the Authority on behalf of the District of 
     Columbia.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Mayor shall report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives on the progress made in carrying out the 
     commercial revitalization program.
       Sec. 169. Section 456 of the District of Columbia Home Rule 
     Act (Section 47-231 et seq. of the D.C. Code, as added by the 
     Federal Payment Reauthorization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-
     373)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority'' and inserting ``Mayor''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``Authority'' and 
     inserting ``Mayor''.
       Sec. 170. (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The District of Columbia has recently witnessed a spate 
     of senseless killings of innocent citizens caught in the 
     crossfire of shootings. A Justice Department crime 
     victimization survey found that while the city saw a decline 
     in the homicide rate between 1996 and 1997, the rate was the 
     highest among a dozen cities and more than double the second 
     highest city.
       (2) The District of Columbia has not made adequate funding 
     available to fight drug abuse in recent years, and the city 
     has not deployed its resources as effectively as possible. In 
     fiscal year 1998, $20,900,000 was spent on publicly funded 
     drug treatment in the District compared to $29,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 1993. The District's Addiction and Prevention and 
     Recovery Agency currently has only 2,200 treatment slots, a 
     50 percent drop from 1994, with more than 1,100 people on 
     waiting lists.
       (3) The District of Columbia has seen a rash of inmate 
     escapes from halfway houses. According to Department of 
     Corrections records, between October 21, 1998 and January 19, 
     1999, 376 of the 1,125 inmates assigned to halfway houses 
     walked away. Nearly 280 of the 376 escapees were awaiting 
     trial including 2 charged with murder.
       (4) The District of Columbia public schools system faces 
     serious challenges in correcting chronic problems, 
     particularly long-standing deficiencies in providing special 
     education services to the 1 in 10 District students needing 
     program benefits, including backlogged assessments, and 
     repeated failure to meet a compliance agreement on special 
     education reached with the Department of Education.
       (5) Deficiencies in the delivery of basic public services 
     from cleaning streets to waiting time at Department of Motor 
     Vehicles to a rat population estimated earlier this year to 
     exceed the human population have generated considerable 
     public frustration.
       (6) Last year, the District of Columbia forfeited millions 
     of dollars in Federal grants after Federal auditors 
     determined that several agencies exceeded grant restrictions 
     and in other instances, failed to spend funds before the 
     grants expired.
       (7) Findings of a 1999 report by the Annie E. Casey 
     Foundation that measured the well-being of children reflected 
     that, with 1 exception, the District ranked worst in the 
     United States in every category from infant mortality to the 
     rate of teenage births to statistics chronicling child 
     poverty.
       (b) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that in considering the District of Columbia's fiscal year 
     2001 budget, the Congress will take into consideration 
     progress or lack of progress in addressing the following 
     issues:
       (1) Crime, including the homicide rate, implementation of 
     community policing, the number of police officers on local 
     beats, and the closing down of open-air drug markets.
       (2) Access to drug abuse treatment, including the number of 
     treatment slots, the number of people served, the number of 
     people on waiting lists, and the effectiveness of treatment 
     programs.
       (3) Management of parolees and pretrial violent offenders, 
     including the number of halfway house escapes and steps taken 
     to improve monitoring and supervision of halfway house 
     residents to reduce the number of escapes.
       (4) Education, including access to special education 
     services and student achievement.
       (5) Improvement in basic city services, including rat 
     control and abatement.
       (6) Application for and management of Federal grants.
       (7) Indicators of child well-being.
       Sec. 171. The Mayor, prior to using Federal Medicaid 
     payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals to serve a small 
     number of childless adults, should consider the 
     recommendations of the Health Care Development Commission 
     that has been appointed by the Council of the District of 
     Columbia to review this program, and consult and report to 
     Congress on the use of these funds.
       Sec. 172. GAO Study of District of Columbia Criminal 
     Justice System.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall--
       (1) conduct a study of the law enforcement, court, prison, 
     probation, parole, and other components of the criminal 
     justice system of the District of Columbia, in order to 
     identify the components most in need of additional resources, 
     including financial, personnel, and management resources; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report on the results of the study 
     under paragraph (1).
       This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.

                        TITLE II--TAX REDUCTION

     SEC. 201. COMMENDING REDUCTION OF TAXES BY DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA.

       Congress commends the District of Columbia for its action 
     to reduce taxes, and ratifies D.C. Act 13-110 (commonly known 
     as the Service Improvement and Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
     Support Act of 1999).

     SEC. 202. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title may be construed to limit the ability 
     of the Council of the District of Columbia to amend or repeal 
     any provision of law described in this title.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
330, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) each will control 30 minutes.

                              {time}  1630

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, as the body knows, we are working on 
conference reports on appropriations bills. We are working well and 
making good progress on the remaining bills. Nevertheless, as it is 
turning out, we will not be able to file reports this evening that 
would make it possible for us to have bills on the floor tomorrow. In 
that regard, I think it is only fair that I advise the Members that as 
we enter this bill and this discussion, we will be taking on the final 
work of the day and the next series of votes should be expected to be 
the final votes of the day and, therefore, the final votes of the week. 
Members should expect to conclude our work at approximately 6 o'clock 
this evening.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
like to add to what the majority leader said and explain that it had 
been our intention to file the conference report on the Interior 
appropriations bill this evening, but just at the last minute a new 
proposal was submitted, the administration had a very strong position 
on something, the Senate agreed that it should be considered, and so we 
are not going to have time to do that and file the bill and get it to 
the Committee on Rules tonight. We apologize. We had expected to have 
this bill ready for consideration on the floor tomorrow except for this 
last-minute wrinkle that developed.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, my final observation, I am sure the Members 
at large will want to join me in expressing our appreciation to the 
members of the Committee on Appropriations and other conferees on other 
conferences for their willingness to continue this work tomorrow and 
even over the

[[Page H10100]]

weekend even though the House will not be formally in session.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The House will now proceed on 
the District of Columbia appropriations bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
H.R. 3064, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are here, Mr. Speaker, on bringing back the appropriations bill 
for the District of Columbia that previously passed this House a few 
weeks ago and was vetoed by the President. It is because of the 
President's veto that we are still here.
  The President in his veto message mentioned several items which I 
will cover in a moment. But I think if we look first, as we should, at 
what underlies this bill in the appropriations, we will understand why 
some of these other issues that are raised as a barrier to the passage 
of the bill should not be raised against it.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is important to the District of Columbia. It 
adopts and approves their budget as put forth to Congress by the mayor 
and the city council. We did not change their budget submission. We 
have a new mayor, a new council, we are trying to work closely with 
them. I have spent a great many hours working with them and other 
persons in the District of Columbia. I appreciate the fresh attitudes 
that many of them have brought to this effort.
  This bill has Federal funding, not required under any sort of 
formula, Federal funding to assist in drug testing and drug treatment 
for some 30,000 persons in the District of Columbia that are on 
probation and parole, that are a great source of crime in the District. 
It has the crackdown money for the open air drug markets; again not 
money that the Congress was required to provide to the Nation's capital 
but which we are doing because it is the Nation's capital, it has a 
serious drug problem, we are trying to help them with their problem of 
drugs and the interrelated problem of crime.
  We have extra Federal funding to help them clear the backlog of over 
3,000 kids in D.C. that are stuck in foster homes that need to be 
adopted into permanent, stable, loving homes. We have funding for the 
incentives for that. We have funding for cleaning up the Anacostia 
River. We have a strengthening of the charter school movement which is 
taking great hold in D.C. in providing kids an alternative to some very 
troubled public schools in the Nation's capital. We have a scholarship 
program to help them attend college, several million dollars set aside 
for that purpose. We have funding for the court system, funding for the 
criminal justice system, funding for the prison and corrections system.
  This is a very important bill to help cure some of the accumulated 
problems of the Nation's capital. We are assisting them in reducing the 
size of the District government, to help them buy up employment 
contracts so they can shrink the size of the District government. We 
have approval for the tax cuts that the D.C. mayor and council have 
adopted, historic tax cuts and reductions to make the Nation's capital 
a better and safer place to live, to work and to visit.
  In the midst of all these, we also have some things that have been 
part of this bill for years, that nevertheless the President chose 
those things, to ignore all these other things which have had universal 
approval, to ignore all these others, and the President chose certain 
issues in his veto message.
  There are seven things in his veto message. First, he said he was 
vetoing it because it did not allow the District of Columbia to decide 
for itself whether marijuana would be legal. Of course, that is why we 
have national drug laws. Second, because it does not permit the 
District to be involved in providing free needles to drug addicts, he 
vetoed it over that. Third, because it has a restriction that has been 
in this bill for 21 years, saying you do not use taxpayer money for 
unrestricted abortion, only in the cases of rape, incest and life of 
the mother. Next, he vetoed it because it continues a restriction that 
has been in effect for 8 years, saying that you do not provide 
taxpayer-funded benefits to unmarried persons living together, you do 
not give them the same consideration as persons living together in 
marriage. Next, he said he vetoed it because it does not allow taxpayer 
money to be used to finance a lawsuit, which was filed and is already 
proceeding, but it does not let taxpayer money finance a lawsuit 
against the House and the Senate challenging the Constitution's 
restriction that does not give D.C. a vote the same as another State in 
the Congress. Next, he vetoed it because he said we should not restrict 
the salaries of the D.C. city council members. There was a lid on how 
much they could go up. And, finally, because it had a restriction on 
how much hourly rates could be for attorneys that sue the schools in 
the District of Columbia, which the D.C. schools had told us was 
important because millions of dollars were being drained away from the 
schools by those lawsuits.
  That was the President's veto message. What is different about this 
bill from when he vetoed it? We have taken away the restriction on the 
D.C. council members' salaries. We have made an adjustment, albeit a 
small one, on the hourly rate legal fees paid to attorneys. We have not 
changed the provisions relating to needles for drug addicts. We have 
not changed the provisions on taxpayer funding for this lawsuit which 
currently is proceeding with private funding. It is in the courts. 
Nobody's rights have been blocked. It is being funded with private 
dollars. They want to use taxpayers' money to pay attorneys that are 
right now willing to work for free. One of the leading law firms in the 
country, Covington & Burling, is handling that so-called voting rights 
lawsuit. We have not changed the provisions regarding abortion nor the 
so-called domestic partners benefits. And we have expressly retained 
the language saying the laws in the Nation's capital cannot conflict 
with the drug laws of the country. And we have expressly disapproved 
the initiative of the D.C. voters trying to legalize so-called medical 
marijuana.

  Mr. Speaker, I heard persons on the other side of the aisle say, 
``Oh, these other things aren't issues,'' and sometimes it is one thing 
and sometimes it is another. But I have never, never, never, never, 
never heard them say, ``We will accept the provision that requires 
D.C.'s drug laws to be consistent with the drug laws of the country.'' 
They have never said that. They have never asked the President to 
withdraw his veto on those grounds.
  I have heard people try to say, ``Well, the President didn't really 
veto it over that.'' Yes, he did. These are excerpts from the 
President's own veto statement.
  He wrote to this Congress, it is in the Congressional Record, 
``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.''
  What is he talking about? He said, ``The bill would prohibit the 
District from legislating with respect to certain controlled 
substances.'' Controlled substances. That is drugs. That is what the 
law talks about. That is how we define drugs in the law. Because it 
does not allow the District to legalize marijuana as they are trying to 
do. And he says, ``Congress should not impose such conditions on the 
District of Columbia.'' Congress imposes those conditions on Oklahoma 
City. It imposes them on Alexandria, Virginia. It imposes them on Grand 
Rapids, Michigan. Every place in the country is covered by the national 
drug laws. The President vetoed the bill because he says, ``King's X, 
Washington D.C. shouldn't be covered,'' that they ought to be able to 
adopt their own rules of this so-called medical marijuana.
  Mr. Speaker, that is greatly misleading. We have had testimony a 
number of times from the persons that we finance with a $16-billion-a-
year effort to fight drugs in this country, including the White House's 
own office, the so-called drug czar, the Office of National Drug 
Policy. Here is the statement from the drug czar of the United States, 
General Barry McCaffrey:

[[Page H10101]]

 ``Medical marijuana initiatives present even greater risks to our 
young people. Referenda that tell our children that marijuana is a 
`medicine' send them the wrong signal about the dangers of illegal 
drugs, increasing the likelihood that more children will turn to 
drugs.''
  Why did the President not listen to his own White House people about 
the effort to legalize drugs? And they have told the Congress before 
that this is just part of the national effort to legalize drugs, city 
by city, State by State, poking holes in the consistent Federal law 
against it. I would like to hear a clear statement from my friends 
across the aisle, ``We will accept that language in the bill. We will 
accept that the District of Columbia should be under the universal drug 
laws that cover all parts of the United States of America.'' That is 
all we are asking. They have not said it. Maybe they will today. But I 
hope it is clear and consistent that they ask the White House to 
retract this part of the veto statement by the President.
  Why do they do such a thing? I can only surmise that he is trying to 
pander to certain political extremists, perhaps to assist the Vice 
President in securing an important part of his hoped-for constituency 
in his race for President. That is my theory. That is the only reason I 
can understand for why this would occur. I believe that it is really 
absurd and ridiculous for the President of the United States to say 
drug policy in America is going to change from a consistent national 
policy to protect our kids, and instead we are going to let people 
shoot holes in the laws all over the country.
  I will place in the Congressional Record a copy of an April 1998 
article from Readers Digest detailing the financed effort, using a lot 
of hype, a lot of misleading things, to promote the so-called medical 
marijuana.
  We had a hearing before our subcommittee. We had the officials from 
the Justice Department and the White House and the Office of National 
Drug Control Policy come and testify. They confirmed to us that it is 
never, never medically necessary or suggested that smoking marijuana is 
the best way to alleviate any health problem. We have had legal for 
over 20 years, under prescriptions, the active ingredient, THC, which 
people can get via a doctor's prescription with a drug called Marinol 
and they have consistently said, let us handle the issue of drugs 
through the Food and Drug Administration and through considered policy 
rather than use these anecdotes and sob stories that sometimes people 
use in political referenda.
  And certainly the police chief of Washington, D.C. is not fooled. 
Charles Ramsey, the chief of police of Washington, D.C., publicly 
issued this statement before D.C. had this vote.

                              {time}  1645

  The police chief said, quote:
  ``Legalized marijuana under the guise of medicine is a sure fire 
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.''
  That is the police chief right here in Washington, D.C.
  All I ask my friends across the aisle and the White House is to 
withdraw their objections to that part of the bill that says you do not 
legalize marijuana in the Nation's capital. I am asking the White House 
to retract that statement. Then we could focus on other issues.
  Finally, in my comments at this time I recognize and will hear some 
about this voting rights effort to the lawsuit, trying to win through 
the courts, not through the Constitution, a vote for D.C. in the House 
and votes in the Senate. I understand their concern. The restriction in 
the bill does not say they cannot have such a suit; it says do not use 
taxpayers' money for it; that such a suit has been pending; it has been 
for many months, handled at private expense. The attorneys are handling 
it pro bono, which means they do not charge anything, and nobody's 
rights have been denied.
  The District officials said, ``Oh, we want to be able to pay the 
attorneys that are right now willing to do it for free.'' That is the 
issue. It has acquired some symbolism on both times.
  I made a good faith effort in the House/Senate conference to craft 
something that would satisfy D.C. and satisfy the Senate. The Senate 
has not at this time been willing to go along with it.
  I think symbolism has got people pushed on both sides, and I am not 
looking at the symbols, I am looking at the reality that the lawsuit is 
going to go forward with or without the funding; and nominal funding is 
one thing, large funding is another. Maybe we can work that out in 
conference because we are going to have a conference between the House 
and the Senate.
  We are not trying to ramrod anything. I have been in communication 
with the White House officials through the Office of Management and 
Budget; I have been in communication with my friends across the aisle, 
with the persons in the District, with a ton of other people. We have 
had lots of discussions on this.
  I hope nobody would believe anything to the contrary, and we are 
still going to have further discussions, but right now we need to move 
it along and get this bill passed. Then we will have the House/Senate 
conference, and we will try to work out the differences. I wish we 
could work them all out today. It will do no end of good if we could 
just have our friends across the aisle and the White House abandon 
their support of the effort of D.C. to legalize marijuana.

[[Page H10102]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14OC99.007



[[Page H10103]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14OC99.008



[[Page H10104]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the challenge from the 
distinguished gentleman and chairman of this appropriation subcommittee 
as to what we are attempting to seek. I will say it as explicitly as 
possible.
  The citizens of the District of Columbia do want to be held to the 
same Federal law that applies to every other citizen of the United 
States. We have said it, and in fact that is what this bill is all 
about. The only real issue here is whether D.C. citizens should have 
the same responsibilities and the same rights and be held accountable 
in the same manner as every other citizen in the United States.
  That is what this whole issue is all about: apply the same Federal 
law on medicinal use of marijuana as we apply in every other State and 
every other community.
  So we got a lot of red herrings here, and it has been suggested that 
the President on the one hand wants to legalize drugs and on the other 
hand, we quote, the very people he has appointed to fight drugs, quote 
them, that they are opposed to legalizing drugs. They cannot have it 
both ways unless all they are interested in is political rhetoric.
  The fact is that the President does not oppose this bill for the 
specific issues in these riders but because these riders do not belong 
in an appropriations bill, and it is not fair to the citizens of the 
District of Columbia to treat them differently than every other 
American citizen is treated.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that I cannot support this bill, 
because the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) did do a very fine job 
on the spending parts of this bill. In terms of appropriations, nice 
job, Mr. Chairman. Well done; it is a good bill. Unfortunately, it is 
the nonappropriation issues, the issues that do not belong in this 
bill, that have caused the problems. If it were not for those so-called 
social riders that should have been taken up by the authorizing 
committees that are substantive legislation that do not belong in an 
appropriations bill in our opinion, we are not for that; and this bill 
would pass unanimously.
  We could offer as a substitute today the appropriations bill that was 
approved by the full Committee on Appropriations. We did not get 
everything we wanted. In fact, we yielded and lost on a number of 
issues. But we had a bipartisan vote; it was almost a unanimous vote in 
full committee and an almost unanimous vote on the floor. We accepted 
the will of the majority. It was fair. There was some compromise. It 
was a good appropriations bill. Give us that bill, and our work is 
done, and I know the President will sign this.
  Give us the bill that the full majority-controlled Committee on 
Appropriations passed. Give us the bill that this House floor passed, 
and our work is done. We will sign in a moment, we will vote for it in 
a moment, and I am sure the President will sign it in a moment.
  Efforts to micromanage the affairs of the District were kept to a 
minimum in that bill. The functions that the Federal Government assumed 
under the revitalization act, that was terrific legislation thanks to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the Chair of the authorizing 
committee, where these other issues should be dealt with. Those issues 
were funded at the appropriate levels. Those programs, they are good 
programs, crime, drug treatment, education, the environment, health 
care, and in fact they boosted funding for them. We wanted to keep that 
money; we wanted to support their efforts on that.
  Mr. Speaker, as I say, after we had an opportunity to debate the pros 
and cons and do some compromise, we agreed that it was a good bill, it 
deserved our support.
  But then we got to conference, and it became clear that we were not 
making progress, that in fact it was not a spirit of compromise that 
pervaded in the conference; and that is why we turned around and did 
not support the bill. For example, in voting rights the chairman gave 
assurances to the delegate from the District of Columbia that he would 
take care of the voting rights issue in conference. Did not happen. Had 
it happened, we would not be in this posture, and I would be happy to 
yield to the gentleman just as often as he yielded to me.
  So let us talk about the issues that are at stake here, and the point 
that I am trying to make, that we ought to treat the District just like 
our own constituents, nothing more, nothing less.
  No one in this body, to my knowledge no one in the Senate, has 
offered an amendment, for example, and has told their constituents that 
they cannot use their own local funds to provide health care for 
domestic partners. No one has done that. No one is telling their 
constituents who participate in more than 67 State and local government 
health care plans, more than 95 college and university health plans and 
70 Fortune 500 company health care plans, at least 450 other major 
business  plans, not-for-profit union health care plans, no one has 
tried to make it illegal for those private entities and State and local 
governments to do what they think is right for their constituents. No 
one, but we have done it for the District.

  No one in this body has offered an amendment to prohibit the 113, 113 
other localities that have needle exchange programs. We have not tried. 
No one has tried to prevent them from using their local funds for those 
programs, and yet the District of Columbia has the very highest rate in 
the country of HIV infection, and that is why so many people care. It 
is the single greatest source of deaths for people between the ages of 
25 and 35. Of all the communities that ought to be afraid to do what 
they think is necessary, no matter how radical some people may think 
it, the District has the worst problem.
  I am sure we would not do it to any other community, tell them that 
they cannot deal with their problems in the way that they see fit, 
particularly since every scientific and medical study, every study has 
affirmed that needle exchange programs in fact work. They reduce the 
transmission of AIDS and HIV, and they do not increase the use of 
illegal drugs. Every study has said that. But the reason that the 
Whitman-Walker Clinic in the District wants to do it is because it 
enables them to get access to people who are addicted to drugs. If they 
come in for the needles, the needles cost nothing; but when they go in, 
they identify the drug addicts in the community, they can get them into 
treatment, and they do not get needles unless they can get into drug 
treatment and counseling.
  That is what that is all about.
  But we said in committee, let us not deal with this issue with 
Federal funds. We accept the will of the majority. Let us not use any 
public funds. No public funds can be used for needle exchange programs, 
and that is what the full committee passed.
  Give us that language, and again this becomes the kind of bill that 
we could support. But our colleagues would not give us that language. 
They are saying private funds cannot be used. No willingness to 
compromise.
  Lastly, no one here would consider offering legislation that would 
apply the same restrictions on the medicinal use of marijuana that we 
have applied for District residents. We are not saying that we buy into 
the program. We understand it is a very controversial issue. But six 
States have passed referenda. They passed the referenda. Why not let 
the District of Columbia pass the same referenda?
  I have not seen anybody from any of those States try to prevent their 
States from passing such a referenda, only D.C. Is that fair? As my 
colleagues know, it obviously is not fair.
  So all we want to say is let the Federal law apply as it does to 
those six other States. We are not trying to change Federal law; we are 
just trying not to interfere with the District's right to have the same 
rights and responsibilities that everyone of our constituents have.
  Likewise the abortion issue. We fight about it every year, but we are 
willing to accept what is a more than fair compromise, keep the Federal 
funds out of it, prohibit Federal funds.
  So we go down the list, and everyone of these issues come down to the 
same thing, not whether or not we support the program, but whether or 
not we support the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia 
to make their own judgments with their own funds, not

[[Page H10105]]

with Federal funds. That is what this objection is all about.
  Lastly is the issue of voting rights. We discussed it on the rule. 
All that needs to be allowed is for the D.C. Corporation Counsel to 
advise the D.C. City Council, the elected body of the District of 
Columbia, on the status of legislation directly affecting D.C. 
citizens. That is all they have to do because the cost is paid for pro 
bono by a large law firm, but right now the D.C. Corporation Counsel 
cannot even discuss it with the D.C. City Council. Now this is not an 
unreasonable request.
  So I am going to offer an amendment, and all that amendment would do 
is to insert one word. It would say that no Federal funds can be used 
in the pursuit of, and actually I will give my colleagues the exact 
words; it would say: ``No Federal funds can be used by the District of 
Columbia Corporation Counsel or any other officer or entities of D.C. 
government to provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action 
which seeks to require Congress to provide the voting representation of 
Congress for D.C.''

                              {time}  1700

  No Federal funds can be used for that. That is what we want to do. I 
cannot imagine that my colleagues could come up with anything more 
reasonable as a compromise than that.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the manager of the bill, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), who called the bill up for 
consideration, yield for this purpose?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, under the rule, I do not believe I am 
permitted to yield for any amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Let me repeat the question. Does the manager 
of the bill, the gentleman from Oklahoma, who called the bill up for 
consideration, yield for that purpose?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I have not yielded for that purpose.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that, 
contrary to what the gentleman suggested, that that would not be 
prohibited by the rule for the gentleman to yield for this request.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not yielded for that 
purpose.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, if I might explain my question of 
the Speaker, there is perhaps a misunderstanding, and maybe it is on my 
part, but is it not a correct understanding that it would be in order, 
if the gentleman were to yield, such yielding for this purpose would 
not be prohibited by the rule that was passed? Is that a correct 
interpretation?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair could entertain a unanimous 
consent request from the gentleman from Virginia if the gentleman from 
Oklahoma would yield for that purpose. He has not yielded.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, he has not yielded. I wanted to 
clarify that, that the gentleman was free to yield, but chose not to 
yield for that purpose. His yielding would not have been prohibited 
with the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TIAHRT. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TIAHRT. If the gentleman is making a unanimous consent request 
for the purpose of something that is already in the bill, would his 
request not already have taken place with the final vote of the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has not entertained any request.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to how much time remains 
on either side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 
15\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 
18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I appreciate that there has been some disposition on this floor to 
try to rescue this bill from its stalemate. I cannot speak to the 
riders because this matter, for me, no longer is about the riders. I do 
believe that the riders can be settled; that there is, and one can see 
it from at least some of the Members here, some disposition to try to 
deal realistically with the riders.
  However, as I look at what is happening on this floor, it is like 
looking at a play where everyone is playing her part. I am unable to 
play the part of the Republican who is for the riders and the Democrat 
who opposes the riders, because this is serious business for me. I want 
to focus on the process so that we can find our way out.
  This bill was vetoed on September 28. That was 16 days ago. Since 
that time, there has not been a single meeting among all of those 
concerned. There have been discussions with individuals, discussions 
that none of them had the power to consummate into a bill. I had 
amicable discussions, for example, with the chair of the subcommittee. 
We even agreed to the kind of thing we certainly would not agree to see 
in the bill, something that had been proposed that we certainly did not 
want to see happen, and he said he would be back to me after he looked 
at the veto message. I have not heard from him, but I cannot much blame 
him, because he knows that Eleanor Holmes Norton is not empowered to 
make an agreement on this bill.
  For those new to the House, there is no Member in the Chamber now who 
is empowered to solve this matter. That is not what happens after a 
veto. After a veto, one has to get the House and the Senate Members 
together, have an exchange, and see what we can come up with.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what has not occurred on this bill.
  I want the Members to know that this Member believes that an 
accommodation can be made on this bill, and I ask only that we get in a 
room to seek that accommodation. The administration has tried; it has 
been unable to do so, and that may be because getting everybody 
together has been the problem. If there is goodwill on both sides, let 
us seek to do that now.
  The District of Columbia is used to being treated uniquely; the 
District of Columbia is used to being treated unfairly, but it is a new 
low to isolate the city, to have no communication about its 
appropriation with the Members of the House and Senate who are in a 
position to resolve the matter.
  When I went to speak with the Speaker, and I want to say that I 
appreciate that the Speaker spoke with me when I asked to speak with 
him, even though I had no meeting, and I appreciate the wonderful tone 
that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the Speaker set when I 
took the Mayor of the District of Columbia to meet them both. And we 
agreed that we were going to try to move forward this year in a fashion 
that was satisfactory to all and did not involve confrontation, and I 
appreciate that we had very serious discussions when we met. I have 
been assured by the Speaker and his staff that there would indeed be 
discussions following this vote.
  The problem I have with that procedure is that even though there have 
been some virtual negotiations here, what happens after we have a vote, 
instead of hardening sides, I want to put the position of the District 
of Columbia on the table. Here I speak for the Mayor. Here I speak for 
the entire City Council, and here I speak from the only Member of 
Congress that represents them.
  The District of Columbia does not want a confrontation. The District 
of Columbia does not want a vote on this matter at this time. The 
District of Columbia does not want ``no'' votes for the Democrats and 
``yes'' votes for the Republicans. The District of Columbia does not 
want a House ritual. The District of Columbia wants the House and 
Senate, Democrats and Republicans to get in a room with the 
administration and solve this matter this very day. And we say that, 
despite the fact that there are more anti-home rule riders in this bill 
than ever in 25 years of home rule. Yet, we are willing to engage in 
realistic discussions.
  From the beginning I have said that I knew we would not have a 
perfect

[[Page H10106]]

bill. I have been prepared to iron out our concerns. I have found 
nobody who would get me in a room, and I do not even have to be in 
there. All that has to be in there is the agent of the person that has 
to sign the bill, we have nothing unless he signs it, and whoever is 
empowered in the House and the Senate to say yes. The gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is not empowered to do that, he is not the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, he is not the Speaker of 
the House. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) does not have the 
power to do that, he is not the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); and certainly 
nobody in this room is empowered to do that for the President of the 
United States. If one is serious about getting a bill done, everybody 
in this room knows that is the only way to do it.
  This is no longer about any particular riders; all of the riders are 
now up for grabs. It is about whether we should go to a vote when this 
matter has been brought forward unilaterally. It is about whether we 
are willing to give respect to the new mayor and the new city council 
who have submitted a balanced budget and tax cuts and a surplus; it is 
about helping a city which has struggled out of insolvency.
  We are well aware of our differences. We ask that we get the respect 
of not submitting us to the summary execution of a vote at this time, 
but allow discussions to go on before any vote occurs so that when we 
come back on Tuesday, we can have a vote which would be, in effect, a 
consensus vote.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding me this time.
  I just want to say that there is a lot of confusion on that side. 
First I heard there were two issues pending, then I heard that there 
were seven issues pending, and then that we have not had enough 
meetings. The chairman has been available to meet with the President's 
point of contact for this very bill, but they have not returned his 
phone calls.
  Let us go back to the two very objections: voting rights and needle 
exchange programs. Both of these issues are progressing forward under 
private funds and there is nothing in this legislation that would stop 
them from happening. So to consider that this is an objection to stop 
the bill is false. They are continuing at their own speed with private 
funds, and I think they should. They want to use tax dollars, and they 
are my tax dollars too. I pay taxes in the District of Columbia like a 
lot of people do. I pay my parking tickets, and I do not want my taxes 
going for either one of these issues. But I do want to talk about the 
needle exchange program because it does currently exist and I think it 
should be stopped because number one, it is simply bad policy.
  The Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, says in his Office of 
National Drug Control Policy in July of 1999 that we should not have a 
needle exchange program, and why? The public health risks outweigh the 
benefits. He said that treatment should be our priority. He says it 
sends the wrong message to our children and it places disadvantaged 
neighborhoods in greater risk. Well, if one does not agree with General 
McCaffrey, then call for his resignation. We can quote study after 
study, but the Drug Czar says we should not be doing this and let us 
not do it. If one does not agree with that, call for his resignation.
  I do not think it works, because number two, the facts are very 
clear. If we look at what has happened in Baltimore, Baltimore has had 
a needle exchange program for 7 years; all of the opportunity in the 
world for it to work. But, according to the AP in a story released on 
July 5, nine out of 10 injection drug users in Baltimore have a blood-
borne virus, nine out of 10. If nine out of 10 is not failure, how do 
we define failure?
  The District of Columbia should not accept 10 percent as a passing 
grade. It simply does not work.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I know my friend from Kansas would appreciate having his quote fully 
explained so that no one might take it out of context.
  General McCaffrey's quote was, ``I think the expanding number of 
needle exchange programs may go on at the community level, but it is 
our own viewpoint that Federal dollars need to be really conserved for 
effective drug treatment, particularly in support of the criminal 
justice system.''
  General McCaffrey's office has told us that his remarks were taken 
out of context. He does support a ban on Federal funds for the use of 
needle exchange programs which, of course, is the language that we are 
trying to get in this bill, the very language General McCaffrey 
supports, but he has never supported a prohibition on local 
jurisdictions' efforts to implement a needle exchange program.
  Now, these are the facts. I know the gentleman agrees with me that we 
are all entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own set of facts. 
These are facts. This is General McCaffrey's full quote, and I know he 
appreciates having his quote clarified so that it is not taken out of 
context.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Virginia is right. Facts 
are stubborn things and the facts are that nine out of 10 injection 
drug users in Baltimore are infected with a drug-borne virus. A 
complete failure.
  But to go back to the gentleman's point about General McCaffrey, this 
program does exist at the local level, it continues with local funds, 
and that agrees with what he is trying to say. So I do not think there 
is a disagreement with that. The disagreement is that this is bad 
policy; it simply does not work; and it should not progress the way we 
have it here in the District of Columbia. We should make this a shining 
city, a jewel on the top of the hill and not some place as a drug 
haven.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, is the glass half empty or is it 
half full? That is where we always seem to be on the District 
appropriation bill.
  This bill has a number of good things in it. We have taken off some 
of the riders from the last visit to the House floor. We have taken off 
the limitation on Council's salaries. We have taken off the capping of 
attorney's fees for special ed attorneys and the limiting of counsel on 
the leased property, working with the mayor.
  But this bill continues to have a number of good things, in fact, 
even some better things as a result of bringing it to the floor this 
second time. There are three additional million dollars for the 
Southwest waterfront that were not here, additional funding to the CJA 
attorneys for the local courts, so they can be paid for representing 
poor people in the district.
  We have money for the D.C. Scholarship Act. This is something that 
will allow D.C. students to pay in-State tuition to Virginia and 
Maryland State colleges, a right other people enjoy in all the other 
States of the union; money for the clean-up of the Anacostia river, 
dollars for a study of the widening of the 14th Street Bridge, 
additional money for drug treatment, and some other very good things in 
here. It takes and ratifies what the Mayor and the Council agreed on, 
and the Control Board, for their budget. So those are the very positive 
things.
  It has some riders in the bill, some additions to this bill that have 
some controversy. We have talked about the marijuana initiative. This 
is a very poor initiative, in my judgment, because it is very overly 
drawn. The courts would have a field day. We do not even need a 
doctor's prescription to use marijuana under this, and it is something 
that frankly, outside of the appropriations process, I cannot believe 
Congress would approve. If my county passed it, I know the Commonwealth 
of Virginia would not allow us to do that. That is an issue that I do 
not think under any circumstances

[[Page H10107]]

this Congress is going to have to yield to. It has the needle exchange 
program.
  It has one particularly obnoxious rider that does not even allow the 
city to sue to get their voting status. I think that is wrong. I 
opposed it when it came up here. I would like to see this come out.
  The city does not get a vote on the House floor. There are 600,000 
people that do not get representation in a vote on the House floor, the 
only place in America, and we will not even allow them to use their own 
funds to bring a lawsuit to get those actions clarified.
  Nevertheless, even with all of that, it has a number of good things. 
For that reason, on balance, I think this is a bill that I would urge 
my colleagues to support, and then say that when it goes to the Senate 
and when it comes back to conference, we need to continue the dialogue. 
We need to continue the dialogue with the delegate from the District of 
Columbia, continue the dialogue with Members of the other side, 
continue the dialogue with the District of Columbia government, and 
continue the dialogue with the President.
  Eventually, we end up, I think, with a bill that we can all support, 
but to get there, this is an important stage in the process. If this 
goes down, we are back to ground zero. So I would urge my colleagues at 
this point to go ahead and support it.
  I would just add, the budget was vetoed by the President on September 
28. It is the city government that is now held hostage by not being 
able to move forward with this. The city has done nothing wrong in this 
except to ask approval of their budget. I hope we can get this resolved 
as expeditiously as possible.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 
2000 District of Columbia Appropriations Act. I also urge President 
Clinton to take a firm stand against illicit drug use by signing this 
legislation into law when it arrives there.
  Drug users today are no longer strangers relegated to dingy houses 
and back alleys. Drug users are too often our friends, colleagues, and 
family members. The Congressional Research Service estimates that 11 
million Americans purchase illegal drugs and use them more than once a 
month. The FBI estimates that State and local authorities arrested 
roughly 1.5 million individuals for drug-related crimes in 1997. What 
is more, drug use is often a factor in cases of domestic abuse, child 
abuse, and mental illness.
  Given these troubling numbers, I believe the President's decision 
last month to veto this legislation set an extremely bad precedent. 
While overcoming the challenge of drugs is a formidable task, it can be 
done. It will take resolve. It will take tough choices. It calls for 
bold leadership on the part of our political leaders.
  I urge my colleagues to vote to send this bill to the President.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources.
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we have a constitutional responsibility of 
stewardship over the District of Columbia.
  The other side for 40 years had that responsibility. When we 
inherited, a little over 4 years ago, almost 5 years ago, that 
responsibility, we inherited a District of Columbia where the education 
system was a failure, where the hospitals were nearly closed down, 
where HUD and the housing authority were bankrupt.
  We could not drink the water, and the water had to be turned over to 
others to operate. The utilities had to be turned over to others to 
operate. The prison system was such a disaster that we basically had to 
close down the prison and have it run by someone else.
  The morgue was in such bad shape that the bodies were stacked, and 
there were unburied bodies. That is what we inherited as a new 
majority, plus a deficit that was running in the hundreds of millions, 
a half a billion dollars a year.
  In 4 years, what we have done is we have begun to turn things around, 
reduce the murders in this city. This is today's paper. Read today's 
paper, the homicides. Aaron Walker, 18, found dead. Derrick Edwards, 
22, found dead and murdered. Theodore Garvin, 17. These are just 2 days 
of deaths. Do we want to turn back to that time when they had their 
opportunity, and let us inherit a disaster as far as deaths, and most 
of them drug-related?
  Baltimore, and these are the statistics from 1996, went from just a 
few drug addicts in the beginning of their needle exchange program to, 
in 1996, 38,000. We had testimony and comments from one of the city 
councilmen in Baltimore that that figure has risen to one in eight in 
the population. Do we want to turn back to that liberal policy? Do we 
want to see more deaths? I say no.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to live in D.C. I am a resident. I think that 
for many, many years the other side has let D.C. deteriorate. We set up 
control boards. We focused on education. We fully funded charter 
schools. We funded education. We got a new mayor that I am proud of, 
Mayor Williams. He is working with us.
  The things that we are doing in education, the waterfront, the 
Anacostia River, $5 million to clean up the most polluted river in the 
United States, with the highest fecal count of any river. Yet, my 
colleagues on the other side would vote against this bill.
  I know what the leadership wants, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt). He is fighting for the majority. But to vote against this 
bill because they want to legalize marijuana is wrong.
  My own son was involved with marijuana, Jim. He is in boot camp 
today. If there was a doctor's prescription and it was under real tight 
control, if someone had AIDS, someone had cancer, then yes, maybe. But 
I have talked to residents. I have talked to hundreds of people. Not a 
single one of them knew that it did not even take a doctor's 
prescription to use marijuana.
  Maybe the President would like this. He could inhale, for a change. 
But it is wrong. Even the President saying, I would inhale if I could, 
is wrong. It is the wrong message. For the capital of the United States 
to say it is okay to legalize drugs is the wrong message. It is wrong.
  With all of the fine things that are in this bill, my colleague, the 
gentleman from the other side, and he is my friend, he knows that, we 
have long discussions together through heat, through cold. But I 
believe that we have done a good job on this bill, I say to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and that to deny, because the 
leadership wants to stop this bill for the crazy things, when we talk 
about home rule, it is wrong.
  They, this House, inhibits our cities; IDEA, the Individuals With 
Disabilities Act, OSHA, everything is inhibited by this body. We are 
saying with all the good things in this bill, please support it. It 
helps Washington, D.C.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
respond to my friend, the gentleman from California, that the issue 
that he talked about is really not the issue that is at stake here. He 
very well knows that the State of California passed a referendum 
dealing with allowing medicinal use of marijuana. They had lots of 
loopholes in it. But my friend did not get to the floor and try to 
overturn their law. He may have tried, but it never got to the floor. 
It never got enacted. They are still dealing with that legislation.
  We are just asking for D.C. citizens to be treated the same as 
California citizens.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me, and for his tremendous work in consistently highlighting 
the real problem here, and that is legalization of drugs in D.C.
  Let me state for the record and for the benefit of those on the other 
side a

[[Page H10108]]

statement made by Merilee Warren, Deputy Assistant Attorney General of 
the criminal division of the United States Department of Justice on 
September 29 of this year, before the subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia in the Committee on Appropriations.
  She is discussing the exact same issue that brings us here today. 
That is the initiative in the District of Columbia for the legalization 
of marijuana. She says, ``There is little doubt that the initiative 
undermines the Administration's consistent and effective national drug 
policy.''
  Where have we heard this before? Well, we have heard this, as the 
chairman of the subcommittee has stated earlier, from General 
McCaffrey. One could, Mr. Speaker, take this very quote from General 
McCaffrey of 1997, strike through it, put today's date in, because it 
was just about 6 hours ago that General McCaffrey, the head of the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the same thing. He is 
against medical marijuana, he is against these sorts of initiatives, 
and this is policy inconsistent with what the President is trying to do 
that brings us here today.
  The initiative, 59, in the District of Columbia is inconsistent with 
Federal laws as they apply to the citizens of every State of the union. 
It is inconsistent with the will of this Congress, as represented by 
vote after vote after vote, including the one that we will take today, 
that the District of Columbia should continue to be subject to the 
Federal drug laws that apply elsewhere in the country.
  They should not be given a bye, they should not be given special 
treatment. They should not be allowed to use marijuana with impunity 
and in violation of Federal laws. While the President feels otherwise, 
this provision must stand. This appropriations conference report, with 
the prohibition in it, must move forward. It is consistent with Federal 
policy and with the policy as enunciated by members of this 
administration.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the last speaker, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), we did, in fact, have a hearing on 
this issue. It was an enlightening hearing. It was not conclusive, in 
my opinion, because we had statements from such people as the 
administrative law judge for the Food and Drug Administration that 
after studying the issue for a couple of years determined that 
marijuana was not as harmful as it has been described, although 
obviously tobacco is harmful, too, and it certainly is as harmful as 
tobacco, but they did, in fact, say it had some therapeutic effect. I 
did not know that.
  There are a lot of things that came out that were new to me, and I am 
sure would be new to a lot of people if there was a hearing, if we had 
all the facts out on the table, but we have not had that kind of a 
hearing because we are nowhere near making the medicinal use of 
marijuana legal for the rest of the country.
  In fact, even though 6 States passed referenda, they do not implement 
it because the Federal law prohibits them. That would be the case in 
the District of Columbia. They would be treated the same way as 6 other 
States in the Nation, big States, important States, including 
California, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, lots of important States; did 
not hear their constituents speaking up against their ability to have a 
referenda.
  The needle exchange program, obviously controversial issue, difficult 
to discuss, like the abortion issue, but we have some very serious 
problems. More young adults die from HIV infection in the District of 
Columbia than from any other single cause. Yet, it is the principal 
cause, in fact, of transmission of AIDS to children, dirty needles. So 
the Whitman-Walker Clinic, private clinic, wants to be able to offer 
free needles so they can offer drug treatment and counseling to 
addicts. They need to be able to bring them in to the system, to try to 
save their lives.
  In fact, every scientific study has concluded that the use of free 
needles does not increase the prevalence of AIDS and it does not 
increase the use of illegal drugs, every scientific study, but we are 
not asking to make that Federal law. In fact, we are suggesting, let us 
prohibit the use of all public funds for needle exchange programs.
  Now, is that reasonable? Well, this body has decided on prior 
occasions that it is reasonable. The Labor Health and Human Services 
bill has that very same language. The Senate says it is okay to have 
needle exchange programs if the secretary certifies that it does not 
increase the use of illegal drugs and that it does not increase the 
prevalence of AIDS, the incidents of AIDS. That is a compromise. That 
is in this Labor Health and Human Services bill. We are just asking for 
the same language.
  In other words, we are only asking that the citizens of the District 
of Columbia, Mr. Speaker, be treated as the citizens of every other 
State of the Union. We are asking for nothing more, but nothing less, 
and that is the problem with this bill. That is the problem with all 
those riders.
  Imagine if a Member got up and offered legislation that prohibited a 
local jurisdiction in their district from using local property tax 
money for legal pursuits that their Commonwealth attorney or State 
attorney or whatever, or city attorney, might choose to pursue. That is 
all that is involved with this voting rights issue. All that the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) wants is for the 
D.C. corporation counsel to be able to advise the D.C. city council on 
the status of legislation directly affecting the city and demanded by 
their constituents.
  All the language would say, that we have offered as a compromise, 
make sure no Federal funds are involved but let D.C. use its own money 
for that purpose. It is not much money. It is pennies, relative 
pennies, because a private law firm is doing the work. So all it does 
is to allow the D.C. corporation counsel to report to the D.C. city 
council on the status of the legislation. Big deal, and yet that is so 
threatening we cannot let D.C. do that? My gosh, it is not fair; it is 
not right.
  Now, all of these suggestions have been made that this is really 
about the President wanting some kind of liberal drug agenda? Baloney. 
The President has not proposed any of that legislation. The President, 
in fact his professionals, the people he has appointed, have opposed 
needle exchanges, have opposed legalization of marijuana. Rightly or 
wrongly, they are on record opposing it. All the President wants is 
that the citizens of the District of Columbia be treated like the rest 
of his constituency, because he knows it is not fair to single out D.C. 
and to treat them in a punitive fashion and to strip them of their 
right to govern themselves with their own money. That is all this is 
all about. That is the only reason the President acted as he did in 
vetoing the bill.

  In fact, we offered legislation, we offered a compromise, we probably 
went much too far, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and myself 
and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). We went 
further than we had any authority but we suggested, okay, let us just 
deal with the Voting Rights Act and we will do what we can do to get 
this bill passed. That, when it was rejected, made it clear that the 
real objection is not about drugs or about some kind of liberal agenda. 
The real objection is that the majority in this body apparently wants 
the right to punish, to treat D.C. citizens differently than they would 
treat their own residents. That can be the only conclusion.
  We have not asked for anything unreasonable on any of these issues, 
and I do not think the President acted unreasonably either when he 
vetoed the bill, for the reasons that he vetoed the bill.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that there may be still hope. I hope 
when we go to conference, even though we will be compelled to vote 
against this bill, we can still get a bill out of conference that 
resembles the House bill when it was first passed by the House that 
reflected the spirit of compromise in the House Committee on 
Appropriations.
  If we can get that kind of a bill, then we are on board; then we have 
acted responsibly towards the citizens of the District of Columbia. 
Then we know we have fulfilled our responsibility as Federal 
legislators.

[[Page H10109]]

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  (Mr. PORTMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and its 
cutting edge drug treatment testing and other anti-drug provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the District of Columbia 
Appropriations legislation. I'd like to begin by commending the 
subcommittee, its Chairman (Mr. Istook) and the full committee for 
their work on this important legislation.
  As co-chairman of the Speaker's Working Group for a Drug-Free 
America, I'd like to focus my comments on the provisions of this 
legislation that are of particular interest to the drug prevention and 
education community.
  Substance abuse contributes directly to many of our most difficult 
social problems--violence, child and spousal abuse, homelessness, 
robbery, theft and vandalism. And I'm pleased to say that this 
legislation contains some very important provisions to curb the problem 
of substance abuse here in our nation's capital--that could become a 
model for other communities around the country.


                Drug Testing for Prisoners and Parolees

  This legislation contains funding for drug testing of prisoners and 
parolees in the District of Columbia prison system. This is an 
important step, and I commend Chairman Istook for pushing hard for it.
  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. In 1996 
alone, more than 1.5 million people were arrested for substance abuse-
related offenses. 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 you'd be wrong. In 
fact, those who go to prison too often don't receive effective 
treatment to address their addiction--and they tend to wind up right 
back in the criminal justice system in future.
  In fact, nationwide, only 13% of prisoners receive any sort of 
treatment for their drug problem at all and many of those treatment 
programs are considered inadequate.
  And, instead of breaking the drug habits that underlie so much 
criminal behavior, our prisons too often fail to address--or sometimes 
worsen--them for thousands of prisoners and parolees. 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. In fact, a recent 
Federal Bureau of Prisons study showed that inmates, who receive 
treatment are 73% less likely to be re-arrested than untreated inmates.
  To address this problem, 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.


                           Medical Marijuana

  Let me touch on two other provisions of this legislation that are 
important to the anti-drug community. First--the so-called ``medical 
marijuana'' ballot initiative.
  I am very skeptical about the recent spate of ballot initiatives that 
seek to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The 
federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act--which created the FDA--
specifically states that only the federal government has the authority 
to approve drugs for medical use. If a street drug like marijuana were 
to be studied for legitimate medical uses, FDA would regulate it as an 
investigational drug. FDA has not chosen to do so with marijuana, and 
the notion that states or the District of Columbia can choose to ``opt 
out'' of FDA regulation and approve drugs for use on their own strikes 
me as a threat to public health and safety.
  We don't allow states or localities to opt out of Federal Aviation 
Administration regulations. We don't allow states or localities to opt 
out of OSHA regulations. And we should not allow state or local ballot 
initiatives to take the regulatory authority over the use of drugs out 
of the hands of the FDA.
  I am even more skeptical about ``medical marijuana'' after reviewing 
the conclusions of the recent Institutes of Medicine report: Marijuana 
and Medicine: ``Assessing the Science Base,'' which made it very clear 
that smoked marijuana is absolutely not beneficial as medicine.
  The continued public debate over what, if any, medical benefits some 
chemical compounds found in marijuana may have makes it harder to 
convince our kids that drug use ends dreams and ruins lives. Every day, 
parents, teachers and community leaders confirm our worst fears about 
teenage drug use--not only has the overall number of kids trying drugs 
doubled since 1992, but they are using drugs in greater amounts, more 
frequently, and at younger ages. Recent studies indicate that 8-10% of 
our kids are currently or will become addicts. It's a national 
disgrace.
  We know what works: Nothing is as important to turning around this 
trend than a powerful, unequivocal and consistent message from 
Washington, from our statehouses, from our courthouses, from our 
schools, our places of worship and our homes that drug use is wrong and 
dangerous. These ballot initiatives send the wrong message to the very 
kids who should hear that drug use is wrong and dangerous--period.


                            Needle Exchange

  Finally, on the issue of needle exchange--I am pleased that this 
legislation takes steps to prohibit the use of federal funds for needle 
exchange programs.
  Clearly, HIV transmission is a major public health issue--and no one 
disputes that needle sharing among IV drug users is a major source of 
HIV transmission.
  The question is how best to respond to this problem. Do we simply 
give addicts clean needles and hope that they engage in ``safe'' drug 
usage? The Clinton Administration thinks so. We believe the answer is 
to address the underlying behavior--the drug use. And we are backed by 
strong scientific evidence.
  Needle Exchange Programs Don't Work: A 1993 Centers for Disease 
Control study conducted by the University of California reviewed the 
impact of needle exchange programs on HIV infection rates--and found no 
difference in HIV infection rates between those participating in needle 
exchange and those who did not.
  A 1996 study in Vancouver of more than 1000 IV drug users who visited 
needle exchanges showed that 40% of the group still borrowed needles 
and 18.6% of the group became infected with HIV during the test period.
  And a 1997 Montreal study found that addicts who participated in 
needle exchange programs were more than twice as likely to become 
infected with HIV as those who didn't.
  Why? (1) Addiction is a consuming habit, and hard-core addicts are 
more focused on getting their next ``hit'' than using clean needles;
  (2) Needle exchange overlooks the core behavior--drug abuse--that 
causes people to engage in risky behavior, including risky sexual 
behavior that increases the chances of HIV infection. A recent 
University of Pennsylvania study found that overdoses, homicide, heart 
disease, kidney failure, liver disease, and suicide are far more likely 
causes of death for addicts than HIV; and
  (3) Needle exchange advocates argue that they're protecting not just 
the addict but also that person's needle exchange and/or sexual 
partners--but overlook the amount of violent crime caused by drug 
addicts.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary that this legislation bar the 
use of federal funds to support needle exchange in the District of 
Columbia. The siren song of needle exchange--that we can have safe drug 
use without negative social consequences--is fundamentally flawed. We 
need to focus on the real solution--getting the addicts into treatment 
so they change their risky behavior--and stop wasting taxpayer dollars 
on programs whose alleged benefits are highly questionable.
  I urge my colleagues to support this appropriations bill that 
contains these important anti-drug provisions, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an article entitled 
``Needle Exchange Programs Have Not Proven to Prevent HIV/AIDS.''

                    [From Drug Watch International]

                 Needle Exchange Programs: 1998 Report

                        (By Janet D. Lapey, MD)


   Needle Exchange Programs Have Not Been Proven to Prevent HIV/AIDS

       Outreach/education programs have been shown to be very 
     effective in preventing HIV/

[[Page H10110]]

     AIDS. For instance, a Chicago study showed that HIV 
     seroconversion rates fell from 8.4 to 2.4 per 100 person-
     years, a drop of 71%, in IV drug addicts through outreach/
     education alone without provision of needles. Needle exchange 
     programs (NEPs) add needle provision to such programs. 
     Therefore, in order to prove that the needle component of a 
     program is beneficial, NEPs must be compared to outreach/
     education programs which do not dispense needles. This point 
     was made in a Montreal study which stated, ``We caution 
     against trying to prove directly the causal relation between 
     NEP use and reduction in HIV incidence. Evaluating the effect 
     of NEPs per se without accounting for other interventions and 
     changes over time in the dynamics of the epidemic may prove 
     to be a perilous exercise. The authors conclude, 
     ``Observational epidemiological studies . . .  are yet to 
     provide unequivocal evidence of benefit for NEPs.'' An 
     example of this failure to control for variables is a NEP 
     study in The Lancet which compared HIV prevalence in 
     different cities but did not compare differences in outreach/
     education and/or treatment facilities.
       Furthermore, recent studies of Needle Exchange Programs 
     show a marked increase in AIDS. A 1997 Vancouver study 
     reported that when their NEP started in 1988, HIV prevalence 
     in IV drug addicts was only 1-2%, now it is 23%. HIV 
     seroconversion rate in addicts (92% of whom have used the 
     NEP) is now 18.6 per 100 person-years. Vancouver, with a 
     population of 450,000, has the largest NEP in North America, 
     providing over 2 million needles per year. However, a very 
     high rate of needle sharing still occurs. The study found 
     that 40% of HIV-positive addicts had lent their used syringe 
     in the previous 6 months, and 39% of HIV-negative addicts had 
     borrowed a used syringe in the previous 6 months. Heroin use 
     has also risen as will be described below. Ironically, the 
     Vancouver NEP was highly praised in a 1993 study sponsored by 
     the Centers for Disease Control.
       The Vancouver study corroborates a previous Chicago study 
     which also demonstrated that their NEP did not reduce needle-
     sharing and other risky injecting behavior among 
     participants. The Chicago study found that 39% of program 
     participants shared syringes vs 38% of non-participants; 39% 
     of program participants ``handed off'' dirty needles vs 38% 
     of non-participants; and 68% of program participants 
     displayed injecting risks vs 66% of non-participants.
       A Montreal study showed that IV addicts who used the NEP 
     were more than twice as likely to become infected with HIV as 
     IV addicts who did not use the NEP.vii(7) There was an HIV 
     seroconversion rate of 7.9 per 100 person years among those 
     who attended the needle program, and a rate of 3.1 per 100 
     person-years among those who did not. The data was collected 
     from 1988-1995 with 974 subjects involved in the 
     seroconversion analysis.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish we were here just talking, as the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) was just mentioning, just about this lawsuit, 
which is frankly already in court and the District of Columbia says we 
want the right to pay the attorneys for the work they are doing for 
free.
  In fact, realizing that it is a highly symbolic issue, both with D.C. 
and some other Members of Congress, I sought to craft a compromise and 
get the House conferees to support a compromise in the earlier 
conference but was not successful. That is symbolism. When it comes to 
drugs, it is not symbolic, it is reality. If someone's kid is using 
drugs, that is reality, and it does not get any deeper than that.
  This bill has language that says, the District of Columbia cannot 
have laws that differ from the laws of the land. We are all bound by 
them.
  We are bound by article 1, Section 8, that gives us the 
responsibility for D.C. we do not have for any place else in the 
country. The Constitution, article 1, Section 8, says it is the 
Congress of the United States that has exclusive legislative authority 
over the District of Columbia.
  Now, in other places we are only in charge of enforcing the Federal 
laws. If California or Arizona, anyplace, puts a law on the books we 
still make sure the Federal laws on marijuana and other drugs are still 
being enforced and we are making sure of that, but we do not have the 
ability about what the laws say. Here in D.C., we do. We are 
responsible if D.C.'s laws are bad. The Constitution says we are 
responsible, and if I am responsible I want to do the right thing.
  The President of the United States, do not give me this business 
about saying the President of the United States does not want to 
legalize marijuana. Read the veto message he sent to us on this bill. 
He vetoed it because it prohibits the district from legislating with 
respect to certain controlled substances, controlled substances, drugs, 
marijuana. The only thing pending, of course, was the marijuana 
initiative.
  The President vetoed the bill and told us it was because we would not 
let D.C. legalize marijuana, and we should not.
  It is our responsibility. The police chief here in Washington, D.C. 
is not fooled. He has told the public, it will lead to more drug 
trafficking and abuse and more drug-related crime and violence in our 
neighborhoods.
  If this bill is voted against, it is a vote to legalize drugs in 
Washington. I urge a yes vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this legislation an 
to make clear my reasons for doing so. I want to make it perfectly 
clear at the outset that I do not support the legalization of marijuana 
or any reduction in penalties for Class One drugs. I was pleased when 
Mr. Barr's amendment affirming this principle passed unanimously during 
House consideration of the initial D.C. Appropriations bill. In fact, I 
voted for this bill with that provision included when the House 
overwhelmingly approved the initial bill in July to keep the 
legislative process moving forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill because it continues to broach 
the concept of local control for the District of Columbia, prohibiting 
the use of District and private funds on a host of matters, including 
the pursuit of voting rights in Congress for the citizens of the 
District. Furthermore, the process by which this bill has reached the 
floor has been flawed. The Republicans have not negotiated on these 
issues in good faith, and have not adequately worked with 
Representative Norton. I know that we can reach agreement on a bill 
that maintains a strong prohibition on the legalization of all Class 
One drugs, if the majority will simply reach across the aisle. I hope 
this happens soon.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I intend to cast my vote today against the 
D.C. Appropriations Conference Report. I will vote against this bill 
not because I disagree with provisions banning the use of funds for 
needle exchange programs--I voted for the amendment adding this 
language to the House bill when it was passed by this body back in 
July. I am also strongly opposed to the use of marijuana for any 
purpose. I support these restrictions, and they are not the reasons for 
my concern.
  I am, however, opposed to this bill because it deprives the people of 
the District of Columbia of their right to pursue legal recourse on 
voting rights. It effectively ties their hands, preventing them from 
using even their own money to address this issue in court.
  Ms. Speaker, I do not believe that Congress has the right to dictate 
to the District, or to any other locality for that matter, how it 
should use its own money. Most of us agree that Congress should not 
tell cities across the country how they should use their own tax money; 
why should the District of Columbia be any different?
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I spent a considerable amount of time last 
week touring the flood ravaged farms of eastern North Carolina.
  And what the people of North Carolina cannot understand, is how the 
President can advocate policies that legalize marijuana and reward 
junkies with free needles, while at the same time, pledging to use the 
resources of the federal government to wipe out tobacco farmers with a 
federal lawsuit.
  Mr. Speaker, this policy says, if you want to smoke pot--okay; if 
you're a junkie and you need another needle to shoot up--come on down 
and the government will give it to you.
  But if you want to plant an acre of tobacco, you are public enemy 
number one and we are going to get you.
  Mr. Speaker, this is obviously wrong, and it shows how far off track 
our government has fallen.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do what is right and take a 
stand against this ridiculous policy by voting for this bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the second 
Conference Agreement on the District of Columbia Appropriations bill. 
This legislation is dangerous to the residents of the District--it 
prevents the use of federal or local funds for life saving needle 
exchange programs; prohibits the use of funds to provide medicinal 
marijuana; and forbids implementation of a Domestic Partners program 
that would extend health insurance coverage in the District.
  Needle exchange must be part of the District's response to the 
growing AIDS epidemic. AIDS is the third leading cause of death in 
Washington, and last year more than a third of all AIDS cases where 
related to intravenous drug use. One half of all AIDS cases in children 
are the result of injection drug use by one or both parents.
  In the district I represent, we have eliminated cases of perinatal 
HIV transmission through needle exchange programs and outreach to 
pregnant women. The leading scientists in our country have concluded 
that needle exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV and do not 
encourage drug use. We

[[Page H10111]]

must allow public health officials in the District of Columbia to 
follow the advice of leading government scientists in order to save the 
lives of children.
  Congress should also not prohibit the medicinal use of marijuana. The 
Institute of Medicine has issued a report commissioned by the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy. The IOM study found that marijuana is, 
``potentially effective in treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS 
wasting, and other symptoms.'' the American Academy of Family 
Physicians, the American Preventive Medical Association, and the 
American Public Health Association all support access to marijuana for 
medicinal purposes.
  The District has prepared a balanced budget which cuts taxes and 
meets the needs of its citizens. It has a new management-oriented 
administration and is making progress on education and other local 
priorities.
  Congress must stop trampling on the rights of District voters, 
residents, and tax payers. Congress must stop preventing the District 
from saving lives and fighting the devastating AIDS epidemic by 
following the guidance of leading government scientists.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It 
continues our program of restoring Washington, D.C., to its rightful 
place as a world capital, putting further into history the city's 
problems borne of decades of neglect. Very simply, this bill adopts the 
City's budget. It keeps expanding and improving educational opportunity 
for citizens of the District. It helps restore the waterways and 
waterfronts of our Nation's Capital, so that they can be something all 
Americans can be proud of. And it is fiscally responsible, keeping its 
books in balance.
  As the House goes to conference with the Senate for a second time on 
this measure, I hope that we will continue to work to make this the 
best possible legislation--in the interest of improving our nation's 
capital city for this generation and the next, and in the interest of 
our commitment to constitutional home rule.
  For example, the measure provides for an infrastructure fund 
requested by the City. Recently, representatives of the City provided 
the Subcommittee its recommended allocation for the use of these funds. 
This allocation was developed by the Mayor's office, in consultation 
with the City Council. In light of the City's request to allocate these 
funds, I hope that the Conference Committee will see fit to adopt the 
entire recommended allocation as part of a conference agreement on the 
District budget, rather than the more limited list provided in this 
bill.
  Secondly, one of the most important issues that this bill addresses 
is the reform of how the City handles leases of real property. There 
simply needs to be a predictable, orderly process for the development 
and execution of these leases, where the Mayor and the City Council 
each have clearly defined roles that move an accountable and 
transparent process forward. The provisions included in this bill go a 
long way toward providing that kind of clarification. I urge the 
Conference Committee to continue working with the City so that, when 
these provisions are enacted into law, there is no longer unnecessary 
confusion between the appropriate roles of the City's executive and 
legislative branches of government with regard to lease negotiations.
  Again, I thank Chairman Istook for his work on this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
330, the bill is considered read for amendment and the previous 
question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, 
nays 205, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 504]

                               YEAS--211

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     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
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     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
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     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
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--205

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     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
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Ackerman
     Buyer
     Carson
     Clay
     Cook
     Cox
     Green (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Kingston
     Lofgren
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Paul
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1805


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood during the vote). A few minutes 
ago, the Chair noted a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of 
the law and Rules of the House. The Sergeant at Arms removed those 
persons responsible for the disturbance and restored order to the 
gallery.
  Mr. MASCARA changed his vote from ``yea to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.

[[Page H10112]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________