[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 3, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11422-H11423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3194, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 354

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3194) making 
     appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia 
     and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against 
     revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2000, and for other purposes. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.

                              {time}  1700

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 354 is a closed rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 3194, the D.C. appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2000.
  The rule provides for one hour of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. Additionally, the rule waives all points of order 
against the bill.
  House Resolution 354 also provides for one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions, as is the right of the minority members of the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 354 is a closed rule, recognizing the 
full and fair debate that the House had on similar legislation earlier 
in this Congress. This rule will assist the House to move forward in 
the appropriations process.
  H.R. 3194 continues to fund the District of Columbia at $75 million 
over the President's request and makes no changes to funding levels 
from the previous D.C. appropriations bill. With this bill, we continue 
to provide $17 million for scholarships to low-income D.C. residents, 
$2.5 million to help improve children's health centers, and $5 million 
to provide incentives for the adoption of foster children.
  The President's request did not include funding for any of these 
important programs.
  With this legislation, charter schools will have access to 
construction funds, the schools will have the same opportunity to 
expand as other public schools, and parents will be able to send all of 
their children to the same charter school. H.R. 3194 enacts the $59 
million tax cut passed by the D.C. City Council, and it works with the 
Council to make vital changes in city management that will place 
Washington, D.C. on the road to financial recovery.
  This bill also restores the original language for needle exchange 
initiatives, continuing our commitment to prohibit Federal support for 
these dubious and irresponsible programs. The Clinton administration's 
own Department of Health and Human Resources prohibits the use of 
Federal funds for needle exchanges, and we should maintain this 
consistent standard.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have taken the necessary steps in this 
bill to bring this chapter of the appropriations process to a close. I 
applaud the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his patience and 
his willingness to work through this difficult process, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, it is deja vu all 
over again. The first District of Columbia appropriations bill was 
loaded with Republican riders and it was vetoed. The second D.C. 
appropriations bill was loaded not just with riders but also with the 
Labor-HHS appropriation. It is yet to be vetoed but it certainly will 
be.
  Before us today is D.C. Three, yet another attempt on the part of the 
Republican majority to move a Christmas tree to the White House even 
before the Thanksgiving turkey is on the table.
  Mr. Speaker, pity the residents of this city. What have they done to 
the Republicans in this body to deserve this mistreatment? Why should 
their appropriation be loaded up with ornaments designed to make good 
Republican boys and girls happy? This bill is truly a turkey and the 
Republican majority ought to face the facts and start dealing straight 
with the people of this city, the Democratic Members of this body and 
the President of the United States.
  Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Let us get on with legislating and 
stop all this tree trimming and turkey stuffing. Give the people of 
this city a break and send the President an appropriations bill he can 
sign. Give us all a real Christmas present so that we can finish our 
business and go home for the holidays.
  I urge Members to vote against this bill so that we can send the 
residents of this city a real holiday treat, a bill he can sign.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, forgive me. Is the gentleman confused? I am. I feel like 
saying, where are we? Why are we here? Why is there another D.C. bill 
on the floor? How could there be another D.C. bill on the floor? One 
was just voted in the Senate yesterday.
  I did not realize that this body loved D.C. so much that it wanted to 
keep voting D.C. bills. One is on its way to the President's desk. 
Remember last Thursday we just voted for a D.C. bill. It was called the 
Labor-HHS-D.C. bill. That must be a new agency.
  We passed the D.C. bill they wanted. That one is about to be vetoed. 
Let me try to get this straight. One veto is not enough? They want two 
vetoes? Do they want them simultaneously or do they want them 
sequentially?
  The last bill, we were told, was the one the majority wanted. That is 
why they put Labor-HHS on the D.C. bill. All of them voted for that in 
conference. Now they are back again with another D.C. bill. What could 
be the reason for a stand-alone bill? What we are seeing is the 
majority manipulating the smallest, most defenseless appropriation. 
They do not want yet another D.C. bill before the last D.C. bill is 
vetoed. They want another vehicle for the majority. The District is no 
longer a city. It is a vehicle. They want to send this vehicle over to 
the Senate in order to tie on yet some more bills to send to the White 
House to be vetoed.
  What kind of way is that to treat a city of half a million people 
whose own money and virtually alone their own money is in this bill?
  Free up the D.C. bill. Three D.C. bills are enough. Let D.C. go.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this rule is 
that it does not allow us to make a tiny, minuscule little change, but 
as little a change as it would be it would have profound consequences. 
We simply want to make it clear that a private, nonprofit organization 
in the District of Columbia can receive private funds and do with those 
private funds whatever they choose to do. In other words, treat that 
organization like we do every other private nonprofit organization.
  All we are asking for is that this bill be given what the full, 
entire House Committee on Appropriations approved; give us the bill 
that the full House of Representatives on this floor approved; give us 
the bill that the full Senate Committee on Appropriations,

[[Page H11423]]

the full Senate itself approved; give us the bill that the conference 
between the House and Senate approved. One tiny little change would 
give us that bill.
  Then not only would we agree with this rule, we would agree with the 
bill. The bill would be sent over to the White House. It would be 
signed and that little $429 million, which is infinitesimal compared to 
our Federal budget, would then be able to be spent in the District of 
Columbia as its citizens deem appropriate. To them, it means the 
difference between a solvent government that can respond to the needs 
of its citizens and one that is kept hostage by the Congress of the 
United States.
  That is the problem with the rule. Let us act reasonably. Then we can 
both get together and do what is right in the interest of the citizens 
of the District of Columbia and in the public interest.


     Amendment In The Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Linder

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Linder:
       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 3194) making appropriations for 
     the government of the District of Columbia and other 
     activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of 
     said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, 
     and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read 
     for amendment. An amendment striking section 175 shall be 
     considered as adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
yield the balance of his time?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, at this point let me state that though this 
amendment is somewhat unusual, we have no objection to the amendment 
being offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder).
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________