[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7026-H7044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 563 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill H.R. 4942.
{time} 1346
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4942) making appropriations for the government of the District of
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is the appropriation bill that we consider each
year for the District of Columbia, the Capital of the United States of
America. In addition to local monies and in addition to monies that the
District receives, just as other communities and other States do
through different Federal programs for transportation, for education,
for public assistance, for Medicaid and Medicare; in addition to all of
those, this bill appropriates $414 million for the District of Columbia
to operate its prisons, its courts, and the program of supervising
those that are on some form of probation or parole.
And even beyond that, this makes additional monies available for a
number of special items in the District of Columbia, such as the new
expansion of the metro system, the subway system
[[Page H7027]]
in the District; funding for a special college tuition program that
provides thousands of dollars to D.C. students to go to college,
dollars that are not provided to students from any other part of the
country; providing environmental cleanup monies; or providing
assistance in the development and the strengthening of the charter
school movement here in the District of Columbia.
I do not want to detail all of them right now. I do not think I need
to. Mr. Chairman, as I made the point earlier, this is a different
community than any other community in the Nation or we would not be
talking about this. We would not be making special money available to
D.C. were it not our Nation's Capital.
We have a Nation's Capital that was in severe financial straits,
basically bankrupt financially, a few years ago; murder rates were at
the top of the charts; failure rates in schools at the bottom. This
Congress got busy several years ago and created a plan to restructure
and restrengthen the District of Columbia, to get it back on its feet.
And I want to applaud the people that were involved in this Congress,
the people that were involved in the administration, the people
involved in the District government, the people involved on the control
board that was set up to oversee the District government, who
collectively have worked together and have brought the Nation's Capital
out of bankruptcy so that this year, for the fourth straight year, they
are going to have a budget surplus. The figure I am hearing is they are
looking at a surplus of about $280 million. That is great.
Now, it would not have happened, Mr. Chairman, had the Federal
Government not assumed some direct liabilities that other States and
communities face themselves, such as I mentioned earlier, the prison
system, the court system and so forth. We also assumed some retirement
obligations that are not directly appropriated but are paid through the
Federal Government, and increased the Federal share of Medicaid
reimbursements from 50 percent to 70 percent. So, with that help, and
some of it seen and some unseen, but with an agreement of involvement
and help of this Congress, the District of Columbia is back on its
financial feet.
They still have severe problems in schools, with drugs, with crime,
but there is also a resurgence of the business community. The D.C.
Council--and they deserve all the credit in the world for this--a year
ago they led the way saying that D.C. was going to reduce taxes on
people here because they wanted people to come back and live in the
city. Tens of thousands of people over the years moved out of the
District. We want them back and we want to create financial incentives
as well as a better and safer place for the people who live here, who
work here, and who visit here.
The District has made a lot of financial progress. But everything is
not straightened out yet, and we understand that and we are trying to
work patiently. There is a new Mayor: Anthony Williams. He is a good
man doing a good job, really focusing on working the bureaucracy and
getting it whittled down because it consumes resources and it stops
things from happening that ought to be happening, whether it is a
business that wants a permit or whether it is a matter of running the
D.C. General Hospital.
Now, here we have a public hospital that already gets tens of
millions of dollars each year in direct subsidies from the District
government and still has been going beyond that. They have taken
hundreds of millions of dollars in money that was not even budgeted. It
was not even budgeted. And here is where I will fault the local
government. They took money that was not even budgeted, and hundreds of
millions of dollars were supposedly loaned to the hospital and then
they wrote off the loans. The District needs to be honest in its
budgeting. And taxpayers are not getting their monies' worth in public
health benefits, yet they are paying inordinately high amounts for it.
And they are paying through the use of gimmicks such as loans, which
they then write off.
I say that as one example of the management problems and the waste
problems that are still severe in the District. If they took even half
the money that they were wasting and applied it to things like a metro
station, or a cleanup problem, or an economic development problem,
whatever it might be, they would not need to ask for special money from
Congress to help with the revitalization of the District of Columbia.
They would have it.
So we are trying to work with them on all fronts. This bill does
that. It helps with the charter school movement, which is a part of
public schools, but is run differently without the normal school
bureaucracy, that is approaching 15 percent of the students in D.C.
public schools. These parents have chosen to send their children to a
public charter school instead of one of the other regular public
schools, and we are trying to help give them equal footing with the
regular public schools as far as the way that public resources are
allocated and the way the bureaucracy treats them so the bureaucracy
does not try to hold them back but, for the benefit of the future of
these kids, it lets them advance.
So we will have a debate, Mr. Chairman, on many of these different
items. I know it is not all financial. Life is not just all about
money, and being the Nation's Capital and being in harmony with the
rest of the country is not all about money either.
I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), who chairs the
authorizing committee, the oversight committee. We have not worked with
him as smoothly as we should have on many things, but he and his
committee have been so supportive of helping D.C. to get back on its
feet and helping to make reforms happen in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Chairman, I am submitting herewith for the Record a chart
comparing the amounts recommended in H.R. 4942 with the appropriations
for fiscal year 2000 and the request for fiscal year 2001:
[[Page H7028]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JY00.001
[[Page H7029]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia has 13 elected city council
members; they have an elected mayor; and there are six members on the
control board that are not elected but have responsibility. It is more
members than we have on the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of
the Committee on Appropriations, and yet we gave the elected
representatives of the District of Columbia 1 day of hearings and then
turned around the very next day and marked up this bill.
In the markup we decided to impose our fixes on some of the most
serious problems that the District faces. For example, let me just give
one example. In Anacostia, in the poorest part of this city and one of
the poorest parts of this Nation, where there are homicides that occur
on a nightly basis, where there is some of the worst poverty and
desperation, rapes and all the things that occur when too many low-
income people are forced into desperate circumstances, they depend on
what is called D.C. General Hospital. The folks who use that hospital
do not have health insurance, for the most part, and the care they need
is very expensive care and it is very difficult to get doctors and
health care professionals working there.
So what we decided to do, because they have management problems and
financial problems, is to say that D.C. General cannot use its line of
credit any more. It is actually operated by what is called the Public
Benefits Corporation. We are now told that means that this hospital
goes under; it will become insolvent within a year, as well as the
Southeast Community and a number of health care clinics in Southeast
D.C. that deal with women and children throughout the neighborhoods.
Now, an alternative might have been to consult with the mayor, the
city council, the professional experts working on this problem. But we
did not do that. We gave 1 day, then imposed our solutions. I do not
think that is the way we should be doing things.
Now, we are going to talk at greater length on that when we have a
specific discrete amendment on that issue, but it is typical of a
number of what are called general provisions in this bill that attempt
to legislate and to override what D.C.'s legitimately elected officials
are trying to do to solve their own problems. But in addition to that,
we have a funding shortfall. The bill is $31 million short of what the
administration and the District of Columbia government requested. It is
$22 million below what Congress appropriated for the District of
Columbia last year.
Now, what excuse can we offer? We are in a time of great surplus.
This is one of the cities that needs help the most. It is our capital
city, and we made a commitment in the 1997 D.C. Revitalization Act to
assume certain responsibilities; to make them Federal responsibilities.
And now, in this bill, we are shortchanging the D.C. government,
reneging on our commitment to the tune of $31 million. In a $1.7
trillion budget we cannot find $31 million to meet our own commitments?
The fact is we can, but we choose not to.
Now, with this lower allocation, what don't we fund? Well, we have
two critically needed economic development initiatives in the District,
and one is completion of a New York Avenue metro station. The private
sector, the business community, said that they would put up $25
million, D.C.'s own taxpayers said they would put up $25 million, and
the Federal Government was to put up $25 million as well. This bill
does not do that, though. They met their share, we are not meeting our
share.
We are putting up $7 million in federal funds. We are going to use
$18 million from an interest account that exists, but we find out now
that the $18 million does not exist. It has already been used in the
D.C. budget that has already been submitted; that has been approved by
the District and will become law unless Congress disapprove it, which
we will not do.
So the $18 million does not exist. It is a shell game. It is double
counted. So we are underfunding the New York Avenue metro station when
two-thirds of it is not even being funded by the Federal Government.
And then there is the Poplar Point brownfield remediation project, an
excellent project. We agree with it. We give it all the rhetoric and
none of the money that it needs.
{time} 1400
We will not have the funds to extend the foster care adoption
incentives. There are kids languishing in the foster care. There are
people that want to adopt them, good parents, and we underfund that. It
even underfunds our own Financial Control Board that we set up to
oversee the District's budget.
So I do not think that this is a bill that we should be particularly
proud of. But even more troubling, once again we are going to debate a
series of social riders and address some new ones as well that violate
the principle of democracy and home rule and restrict how the District
may elect to use its own funds to address its own set of priorities.
Earlier this year I asked the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman
Istook) if we could not start with a clean appropriations bill this
year, clear it of all of last year's general provisions that did not
belong in an appropriations bill. The District of Columbia, the Mayor,
and the President of the United States followed this recommendation in
their budget. But we have not done so.
We have got 68 superfluous general provisions; and in the vast
majority of them we would never think of imposing these kind of
punitive, paternalistic restrictions on any jurisdiction that we were
elected to represent.
Why do we do it to the District of Columbia? We do it to the District
of Columbia because they cannot fight back, they are helpless, we have
control over them, and they cannot vote us out of office. They cannot
hold us responsible. They cannot do a darn thing to us. And so we beat
up on them with these kinds of restrictive provisions and make
ourselves look good back home.
So we are going to offer a series of amendments here. I know we will
probably lose them, and many of them are going to be found out of order
because of this rule that protected Republican amendments and did not
protect the Democratic initiatives.
One of them deals with a controversial issue, medicinal use of
marijuana. But what did we do? We decided that D.C. took a referendum,
and we prevented them for the last year from even counting the results
of that referendum.
Well, that is not the responsible way to address a controversial
issue. I will not get into that any further except to say this is not
the way that we treat a community; it is not the way we would treat
communities within our district.
We have got a domestic partners law, and it says that D.C. cannot
offer health insurance for domestic partners. But yet 3,000 employers
across the country do it in any number of State and local
jurisdictions. We never restrict any of those States and local
jurisdictions. We did not tell employers they cannot do it, but we tell
D.C. it cannot do it.
There is a Contraceptive Coverage Act that has received a lot of
publicity. It does seem that if a health insurance company is going to
cover things like Viagra for men, it ought to cover contraception for
women. That seems only fair and equitable.
We put in legislation that said that they cannot do that unless they
include the kind of religious exemption and ability to opt out on the
grounds of moral objections, which makes sense, except that it is very
broad and, again, we do not do it to anyone else.
I think D.C. should be able to control these issues on their own.
They are the ones that are being held responsible. The Mayor is going
to pocket veto the contraceptive coverage and insist on the religious
exemption clause. But let him do it. He is held accountable. Let them
make that kind of decision. It is not up to us to be doing that.
And the same legislation exists in 13 States. We have not tried to
restrict them in any of those States that we have legitimate control
over.
Again, there are a number of specific situations that are
objectionable in this bill. We have 68 general provisions that I
mentioned. Many of them were punitive. They were one-time measures.
Five of them are already Federal law. We have got another dozen roughly
that are already included in the D.C.
[[Page H7030]]
Code or in the D.C. budget. To include them is superfluous.
Why do we leave this junk in an appropriations bill? We want to clear
it out. That amendment should have been made in order.
Mr. Chairman, we will now embark upon probably a spirited and
controversial debate. But the bottom line is that we ought not be
having this debate because every issue we will discuss has been
discussed by the members of the District of Columbia City Council, has
been considered by the Mayor, has been considered by the citizens of
the District of Columbia.
We live in a democracy. They should be able to exercise their
democratic rights, and we should not be overruling them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
I want to compliment the chairman and members of the subcommittee.
This was not an easy bill to bring before the subcommittee or the full
committee. There were considerable differences of opinion, to say the
least.
However, I am happy to report to our colleagues the good news. This
is the final appropriations bill to go through the House of
Representatives in this phase of our appropriations process. Not only
is this number 13, but the House has already concluded work on the
Supplemental. We have conferenced the Supplemental. We have conferenced
the Military Construction appropriations bill. We have conferenced the
Defense Appropriations bill. And several other conferences are under
way as we speak.
So we are moving right along. I think the Members will be happy to
hear that this is the final bill, this is the 13th bill.
I wanted to say something about the process. The gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) when he spoke earlier talked about treating the
Democratic amendments one way and Republican amendments another way. I
will say to our colleagues that during the entire process on this bill
and every other bill we have treated both Republicans and Democrats the
same way. If an amendment was germane to the bill, we debated the
amendment as much time as the Members wanted. And on occasion that was
a lot of time. But we took whatever time was necessary to give
everybody a fair opportunity to present their views and to support or
oppose the amendments that were before the committee.
Here in the House, on each of those amendments that we knew were
subject to a point of order, we allowed the Member who sponsored that
amendment sufficient time to explain the amendment before we ever
pressed for the point of order. So I think we have bent over backwards.
I served here for a long time in the minority, and I do not recall
that ever happening to one of our amendments when we were in the
minority. If there was a point of order lying, the point of order was
raised and the amendment was stricken at that point.
In fact, on one occasion, just a few days ago, we allowed 3 hours of
debate under unanimous consent on an amendment offered by the
Democratic side of the House knowing full well that it was subject to a
point of order. The sponsor of the amendment knew that it was subject
to a point of order, but yet we allowed 3 hours of debate.
Now, how the gentleman could suggest that we have treated Democrats
differently than Republicans I do not know. But we have bent over
backwards to be extremely fair to both sides of the aisle. And what is
fair for one side is fair for the other.
I hope that we can resolve these differences today, Mr. Chairman; and
I hope that we can pass this bill and let the appropriators get busy
with the conference meetings with the other body so we can conclude our
appropriations business well ahead of the beginning of the fiscal year.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is the one
person actually elected by the D.C. residents to represent them.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak for the city where free Americans
reside, not the Federal city. The Federal city belongs to everyone. As
free American citizens, Wards 1 through 8 belong to those of us who
live in the District of Columbia.
Each year lots of time has been spent debating the minutia of details
of one city far afield from urgent national business and outside the
competence of national legislators. The result, without exception, has
been multiple vetoes that ultimately result in turning around the very
controversial amendments voted into this bill or substantially changing
them.
When will we learn? Hopefully, this year. There is not enough time
left in this session to play games with the D.C. appropriation.
The Mayor, the D.C. council and I have been clear about our two major
objections to this bill. One: not merely cuts, but redirection of the
remaining funds from indispensable priorities that the Mayor and the
council specifically requested Federal funds to cover, including a
subway station that is essential to the District's number one economic
priority and to a new Federal ATF facility on New York Avenue; and two:
reinserting into the bill not only social riders, to which we have
always objected, but gratuitously a far larger number of riders that
are so out of date, or irrelevant that OMB and the District believed
that no Member would want the bill encumbered with them.
A new administration that is cleaning house in the city and
streamlining D.C. government deserves at least to be relieved of
outdated and redundant riders from prior city administrations.
The dollars used in this bill to pay for items meant to be federally
funded deserve special mention and has been discredited in a June 30
GAO report commissioned by the chairman himself.
The bill requires D.C. to use interest accumulated on D.C. accounts
instead of Federal money in the President's budget. Yet the June 30 GAO
report to the chairman stated that Congress has already instructed the
District on how the interest must be used. The GAO concluded: ``As a
result, the District does not have any interest earnings on available
Federal funds.''
The Mayor and the city council have made their views known in writing
to the chairman, and I have had some discussions with him. The bill is
not yet acceptable to the District, and I ask my colleagues to vote no
on this bill.
We are not naive about bills before this body. We are prepared to
support any amendments or changes that would produce not the preferred
bill but a better bill. To accomplish this, it will take more give and
take and more respect for the local prerogatives freely given to every
other locality than this bill reflects for the District.
Let us get to work and challenge ourselves to do better.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the
distinguished chairman of the full committee, for yielding me the time.
My compliments to the chairman and the ranking member for the time
and energy they and their staffs have put forward devoted to reviewing
the D.C. budget and bringing this bill to the floor in a timely manner.
Just a few years ago, the District of Columbia government faced a
financial crisis of epic proportions. That situation was so severe that
the District could not deliver basic services, and there was a very
real concern that it would run out of cash to pay its debt service or
to even meet its payroll.
Today, the city's population is stabilizing, the real estate market
is up, suburban residents are making more leisure trips into the city,
and jobs have increased dramatically.
Next year, the Control Board will go in a dormant state, as
anticipated in the legislation that we passed here in 1995. The city
has balanced its budget for a fourth straight year; and its leaders are
showing, with only a handful of exceptions, that they are focused on
fostering economic growth and delivering basic services.
This budget goes a long way toward continuing the tremendous strides
we
[[Page H7031]]
have made in the Nation's capital over the past 6 years. It funds a
wide variety of programs. It will greatly enhance the quality of life
for D.C. residents and those who visit and work in this wonderful city
from enhanced resource for foster care, for drug treatment and public
education, to money to clean up the Anacostia River and construct a
Metro Rail Station on New York Avenue.
{time} 1415
There are funds for a number of programs to bolster opportunities for
the city's youth population, including $500,000 for character education
and $250,000 for youth mentoring programs.
And there is much more: $1 million for the Washington Interfaith
Network for affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods and another
$250,000 for new initiatives to battle homelessness; $6 million to
cover the city's costs associated with the 2001 presidential
inauguration; $250,000 for Mayor Williams to simplify personnel
practices, money which will allow the city to build on the many
improvements already under way in the area of management reform.
But there are shortcomings to this bill as well. I am concerned, for
example, that funding for the D.C. college access program, a program
created by legislation I introduced in the last Congress, is cut by $3
million in this budget. I am profoundly concerned that this shortage
could leave some D.C. students out in the cold, back in their old
disadvantaged position and unable to become all that they can and
should be. However, I am heartened by the fact that the Senate has a
higher 302(b) allocation and that hopefully when this comes to
conference some of this money can be restored. I urge my colleagues to
restore the funding level for this historic program.
The religious exemption or conscience clause that is in this
legislation may be rendered moot by the fact that the Mayor has said
that he will pocket veto this legislation. In my judgment, the city
council made a huge mistake in not having a conscience clause attached
to their contraceptive coverage legislation, but we ought to let the
city and encourage the city to remedy the mistakes they make. That is
the only way democracy is going to grow and nurture, is not having us
try to redo everything that they do but make them accountable for their
own ordinances and their own mistakes. In this case, I think the
council and most importantly the Mayor have stepped up to the plate and
have said that they would try to remedy this on their own.
Overall, I commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), though,
for this forward-looking spending plan, a budget that ensures the
District of Columbia's renaissance will continue in coming years. I am
proud to have played a part in the city's rebirth these past years, and
I want to thank the fellow members of my subcommittee on the
authorizing side, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton), the ranking Democrat; and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella), my vice chairman; and other Republicans and Democrats for the
work that they have done over these past years to get the District back
on its feet. I wish Mayor Williams and the city council the best of
luck in the future. I think the city is in pretty good hands at this
point. Although this bill is not everything it can and probably should
be, this is a very difficult measure to craft, as we have found every
year on this floor.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern about the
amendments regarding needle exchange programs in the District of
Columbia that are being offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). The bill before us
already bars the use of Federal funds to pay for these programs. But
the Souder amendment would go further. It would prohibit the people of
the District from using their own money, money obtained through local
taxation, for programs that are widely supported by the local
citizenry. This is unfair to D.C. citizens who find themselves subject
to the whims of representatives whom they did not elect. But I would
submit it is also a terrible precedent for the country as a whole,
because despite the squeamishness of some Members of Congress at the
mere sight of a needle, the truth is that these programs work. They
prevent HIV infection. They do not encourage or increase drug abuse. In
fact, there is solid evidence that they actually help reduce drug abuse
by encouraging injection drug users to enter treatment.
It is bad enough for legislators to overrule local decision-makers in
matters of this kind, but it is the worst kind of irresponsibility for
us to substitute our own uninformed opinions for the sound judgment of
the public health community, to say, in effect, Our minds are made up.
Don't confuse us with facts.
I have seen what needle exchange programs have accomplished in
Massachusetts, Mr. Chairman. I know they save lives. If the Souder
amendment becomes law, more people in Washington, D.C., may be infected
with the AIDS virus. More people will die of it. And our Nation's
capital will continue to lose ground in its fight to protect the public
health of its citizens.
On the other hand, if the Souder amendment is enacted, local needle
exchange programs in the District will somehow manage to carry on their
work without the benefit of public funding as they have been doing with
the current restrictions. But the Tiahrt amendment would have a serious
and immediate impact on these existing programs. It would prohibit them
from distributing sterile needles within 1,000 feet of a school or
university, public housing project, student center or other
recreational facility. I realize the gentleman is trying to protect
children from exposure to unsafe needles and the drugs that are used to
inject. I only wish the problem were that simple. As a former law
enforcement official, I have spent considerable time in our inner
cities. The reality is there are plenty of needles out there well
within 1,000 feet of schools and housing projects and student centers,
and those needles are not sterile.
This amendment will do nothing to change that tragic reality. It will
not keep out the drugs and drug paraphernalia that litter these urban
battlegrounds, if you will. It will not keep out the diseases that are
spread by ignorance and lack of sanitation. What it will do is make
sure that these kids who inject drugs and who live in these
neighborhoods, the very young people who are at most risk for HIV/AIDS,
hepatitis and other diseases transmitted through infected needles, will
have no recourse but to reuse unsterile equipment.
We cannot cure the problem by throwing a cordon around our public
institutions. Only good science and sound health policy can do that.
I urge my colleagues to reject these amendments.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), one of the valued members of our subcommittee.
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to step back just 6 years and
look at the District of Columbia because it was a very different place
then. They were running a budget deficit. Schools were failing. It was
known as the murder capital. And crime had kept people in fear.
The first interaction that I had with the District of Columbia was
trying to get a constituent who had been killed by a taxi, have their
body released to the family. Red tape ruled in the District of
Columbia, and it was a very large task just to get the deceased
released to their family.
But today it is a better city by a long ways. The D.C. budget is
balanced, and that is why it was accepted in this bill. The quality of
education has improved through charter schools and through new projects
in public schools. It is a safer community to live in. And the people
from Kansas are more comfortable when they come to the District of
Columbia. Things have gotten better.
But it did not happen by accident. Congress did get involved. It
provided oversight. The D.C. control Board insisted on revisions to the
city and to the police department. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) said earlier the Federal
[[Page H7032]]
city belongs to everyone. I think that is exactly what the writers of
the Constitution had in mind when they gave Congress, and I quote,
``power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,'' in
article 1, section 8 of our Constitution.
The opponents of our bill say, Well, our cities aren't regulated like
this, so we shouldn't be involved. But if you talk to the city councils
in Kansas, they know that Congress has intervened. They have intervened
through the Clean Air Act, through clean water regulations, through
transportation regulations, air travel regulations, labor regulations,
wage restrictions. And the people in the city have been regulated by
Congress, too, health care, work requirements. Congress has injected
itself into our schools, our hospitals, our city councils and our own
homes. Congress does have oversight of the District of Columbia.
So the question is, How should we be involved in this process? I
think one of the things that this bill does that is very positive is
that we go into the areas of this city which need to be reclaimed and
provide mentoring programs to children that are at risk, giving a
mentor to them, to be with them when they need to go to school to find
out their homework assignments, when they need to go to the hospital or
to the physician, and God forbid they should have to go to court, the
mentor is there with them. This bill provides such help. It also
provides a hotline so that if someone is in need in this city, they
call a hotline and they are not let off the phone line until they are
directly connected with an agency that can provide directly for their
need.
There are other things we are going to debate. We are going to debate
where we should deliver needles through the drug needle exchange
program. I personally think we ought to protect the children. We have
talked to the District of Columbia Police Department. There are
currently four locations that would not be affected by my amendment
where needles could be distributed.
As we continue this debate, Mr. Chairman, I hope we come to a
conclusion and pass this bill today.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds on
this issue, we are going to have a little time later on to discuss it,
in terms of needle exchange.
D.C. has the worst problem of AIDS infection of women and children,
and the principal reason is the exchange of dirty needles. The exchange
of clean needles works, but it is very restricted because of the
Congress' intervention. This amendment would effectively preclude even
private organizations from being able to address this problem. There
are too many women and children dying of AIDS in D.C. We ought to do
whatever is necessary to save their lives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer), the leader of the Smart Growth Initiative nationwide.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I can only imagine the frustration that
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) must feel
talking about the special benefits that are accorded to the District of
Columbia; for indeed what we have done, the District has special
obligations that no other local government in the country has. It has
the burdens of both a city and a State and it does not have the tools
that we give the rest of America. On top of that, Congress is
interfering unnecessarily, making that job even harder.
Not only does it add unnecessary and outdated riders, but the budget
that we are discussing here today is $22 million below last year's
funding level. The funding that remains is not fairly distributed to
the city's most urgent economic and educational priorities.
I care specifically about livable communities, and I would like to
reference two: one, the New York Avenue Metro station and Poplar Point
in Southeast District of Columbia. The proposed Metro station at New
York and Florida Avenues is the linchpin of proposed new economic
development activity for the District.
We here in the District every day experience poor air quality,
choking traffic. We hear about problems of sprawl and economic
development. The proposed Metro station represents an important step in
bringing jobs and people together in a location that is convenient for
commuters and does not increase sprawl or require massive additional
infrastructure investments in outlying areas.
This has been extensively planned through public and private
initiatives with the District, the Federal Government, and the private
sector each committing one-third of the funds. While the city and the
private sector have stepped up, Congress is shirking its duty by not
providing the full $25 million in Federal funds that the President has
proposed. It includes only $7 million directly and makes up the
remaining $18 million through accounting gimmicks, including the
borrowing on the city's interest fund which only has $6 million left
and is already obligated by other uses.
The choice forced on the city to delay building the station or losing
other important priorities is not acceptable. We compound this missed
opportunity by the nearby development of the Metropolitan Branch Trail,
the bicycle beltway within the Beltway that could have the $8 million
that we have already allocated through TEA-21 coordinated with the
station. We risk losing both the station and the coordination of the
trail. It would be a tragedy.
Poplar Point, a 110-acre site along the southern corridor of the
Anacostia River, has the potential of becoming a vital urban
waterfront, serving the needs of District residents who now must travel
faraway to enjoy the waterfront amenities that are right outside their
and our door.
Not only has the site been neglected by the Federal Government, but a
portion of the environmental damage is the result of pesticide residue
left by the Architect of the Capitol, because that was our nursery that
operated there for many years. It adds a new dimension of interference
for the Congress in the District of Columbia. It illustrates the
special responsibility we owe to the District both as a neighbor and as
a tenant.
The bill does not provide the requested $10 million for environmental
cleanup and infrastructure improvement needed to spur the redevelopment
and improve the economic health for the residents living near Poplar
Point.
{time} 1430
Between the irrelevant riders, the limitations of the District's
ability to self-govern, we are missing an opportunity. It is not just
unfair to the residents of the District of Columbia, it is not fair to
the American public.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I keep hearing people try to create a fiction that
supposedly we are not taking care of what the District says is its top
priority; namely, the Metrorail station at New York Avenue. In fact, at
the Full Committee, we shifted a few million dollars more of Federal
funds into the Metrorail project, as well as the interest earnings on
the Federal and other funds that we are allocating.
Mr. Chairman, I heard the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) say,
oh, but the fund only has $6 million, and it does not have $18 million.
That is not accurate. Mr. Chairman, what has happened is after the
control board found out that we thought that money should go to the top
priority of the District, then we started receiving lists saying ``we
have these things that were not part of our budget, we want to spend
this money on something different than our top priority.'' And that is
where we found out they want to spend the money on more bonuses at city
hall and golden parachutes for people involved with the control board,
to double their budget in the control board in their last year of
operation, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to correct that, Mr. Chairman; and I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I live in D.C. and have for some time.
I have sat and I have talked to residents, many of them minorities, and
many saying to me we need help for years and years and years. When we
look at the school systems, we look at the economy, we look at the
Anacostia River, the sewage systems, the crime, the drugs and the lack
of response, they would say, I know you are a Republican, we are
Democrat, but would you help us?
[[Page H7033]]
I think this committee has done a lot in the last few years. I say to
my colleagues that for 30 years my D.C. was kind of an anachronism,
that there was not that help and we let the D.C. rule, but then we had
a mayor that ended up putting more cocaine up his nose than worrying
about the economy of his own city. The good news is that Mayor Williams
is trying to work with us and do many of the things that we are trying
to do for this city.
I lived by the train station and in one year, my car was broken into
twice. I heard a gunshot out my driveway, a young man was caught and
said he just wanted to know what it felt like to kill somebody. Two of
the women in my complex were mugged going into a locked gate. There is
a grocery store, the little mom and pop store, across the street was
robbed six times in one year. The residents were saying, we have to
live in this, can you do something, Mr. Congressman. Our children, the
roofs on their schools are falling apart. And my colleagues will
remember they had to cancel schools. We fully funded schools. We
established charter schools.
My own party wanted to cut funds from our public funds, and we were
able to work in a bipartisan way saying that our schools are moving in
the right direction, let us fully fund them. And I think we have seen
some movement. We have a long way to go in this Nation's Capital, but
there are good teachers. There are good schools, but many of those
schools are still failing and we need help.
That is the direction we are working in. When I first arrived here,
there was a woman on the board that was appointed by Marion Barry that
could not read. She was on the committee on the budget, but she had
never had an accounting course. She was a functioning illiterate, but
yet she was a political appointee. We appointed a board to try and help
that. And we have done a lot of very positive things in that.
We wanted to work on something for D.C. We need a long-term sewage
problem. Every time it rains in Washington, D.C., and it is raining
right now, that raw sewage goes into the Anacostia River every time it
rains. It has the highest fecal count in any river in the United
States, and we need to address that.
The mayor is trying to take that up as well, the cleanup of the
Anacostia River. But I look at the economy. When I first came here, the
city was left up to its own devices, they had month-to-month leases.
Now no business is going to come into the city and make an investment,
because people were getting money under the table.
They had governmental control over those businesses to make them do
what they wanted, and no one would invest. And we looked at the
businesses. We could not even get a Safeway here because of the
practices of the city councils and the government, and we have changed
that, in a bipartisan way. We are starting to get investment. We have
increased those leases. We are starting to get jobs into D.C., and I
think that is positive change.
I would say one thing about the Tiahrt amendment, if we look at his
amendment on drug exchange, none of my colleagues would want one of
these outside their door, because it attracts drug dealers, it attracts
drug users. Needles are discarded. What his amendment says, where we
have schools, where we have parks and swimming pools, where children
play barefooted and fall, that we do not want to have our children to
have the risk of the contracting AIDS or other diseases like hepatitis.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a support of the bill.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to
respond to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). With regard to the
use of the New York Avenue Metro money, the reality is that that money
was included in the D.C. budget, that D.C. budget was received by the
Congress before the bill was marked up. There is no way that the D.C.
government could have known, and so that money was already spent before
we spent it again.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings), a most respected and effective legislator.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for yielding the time to me and to say to the
last speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), one of
the interesting things is about the needle exchange program in
Baltimore, there are people who actually want the needle exchange
program in certain areas, because they have discovered that it cleans
up the needles. It gets rid of the problem. I think that one should
take a look at that, and that is something very important.
The other thing that I find so interesting is how the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and now the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham) have talked about the wonderful job that
the mayor is doing. He is doing an outstanding job and a wonderful job.
I would also say that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) is doing a wonderful job.
At some point in time, folks ought to be able to control D.C.
themselves. We do not have to have Big Brother hanging around forever
and forever. I think that it has been clear and it has been said here
over and over again by both sides that they are doing an outstanding
job.
The motto for the District of Columbia is justice to all. Justice in
the form of the ability of District of Columbia residents to use their
own funds to operate needle exchange programs in areas they deem
appropriate. Justice in allowing D.C. to determine appropriate laws to
address the issue of tobacco use among minors. Justice in the right of
District of Columbia residents and the city council to approve and
enact legislation that will permit city employees to receive health
insurance benefits for their long-term partners, regardless of gender,
and to require insurers and employers to cover contraceptive if other
prescription drugs are covered.
Justice in increased funding for Metrorail construction at New York
and Florida Avenues, Northeast, an area ripe for economic development.
Justice in increased funding for tuition assistance for District of
Columbia college-bound students, helping to offset out-of-State tuition
costs at colleges and universities across the country. As a result of
this program, numerous D.C. students applied to Maryland colleges and
universities, including 10 at Coppin State University and Morgan State
University in my district.
Justice in the right of the District to use funds to petition for or
file a civil action intended to obtain District voting representation
in Congress.
Unfortunately, if this bill is passed in its current form, justice to
all will not prevail. Instead, this body will send a message to
District residents that they are not to be afforded justice, but are to
be burdened with requirements that Congress imposes on no other local
jurisdiction and stripped of their right to make local decisions.
I submit that it is our duty as lawmakers to ensure that justice is
applied impartially and equally to all of our Nation's citizens.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and support
District residents and the principle of justice for all.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there is a general principle we often quote here that
says, you should not do for people what they are capable of doing for
themselves, because you don't want to restrict their ability to grow
and to achieve.
It is not a matter of we do not want to help them, but it is a matter
we want to do it in the right way.
I hear a lot of comments about we ought to be doing more for the
District here, we ought to be doing more for the District there. Then I
hear people say, oh, we have cut this budget or that budget. For
example, they claim, inaccurately, but they claim, that we have cut a
Federal commitment to the metro subway station. Let us back up.
What Federal commitment are we talking about? We are talking about
the budget proposal submitted by the White House which is not a budget
submitted or approved by the Congress. Just because something is
proposed by the President, let us not pretend that if we do not agree
with the President on something, that we have gone out and we have cut
budgets or that we reneged on a commitment; that is not the case.
We have made sure that rather than going to this new, after-the-
budget,
[[Page H7034]]
laundry list of things that now they say are higher priorities than the
metro subway station, so we cannot spend money out of this account for
it. Instead of doing that, we said no, we are going with the top
priority of the metro station.
Let us look at what the District is doing or not doing for
themselves. We know they have remaining significant management and
financial problems. Let me just give my colleagues the figures on just
one of them. In addition to the money budgeted and tens of millions of
dollars of subsidies that were budgeted, the D.C. General Hospital with
the Public Benefit Corporation in the last 4 years has had loans, so-
called, of $174 million, which were, in fact, spending beyond what was
authorized or appropriated by law.
In that one institution alone there was $174 million. On top of the
subsidies, on top of their budget. We had a hearing on this, more than
one hearing that we had, and District officials including the central
board said they are not loans they are receivables because the hospital
is supposed to pay it back out of money they receive. No, they know
that. They do not even have the hospital sign any paper. There is no
written agreement. The city and the control board just write checks for
millions of dollars until they have gone $174 million in the hole,
beyond their budget, beyond the subsidies, and then the District
government writes it off.
They have a group looking at it right now that is telling horror
stories about the level of management. In fact, the just-fired
individual in charge, even though people will say when he was in
charge, this hospital got run into the ground even farther than it was
already, he wants a million dollars severance pay, a million dollars
severance pay for helping something go $174 million in the red.
That is the kind of priorities or lack of them that waste money, and
then they come to Congress and say we make up the difference, and then
claim we are reneging on a pledge made at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue if
we do not just rubber stamp that instead of trying to take a more
responsible approach.
They say we are using too much of their money for these things. We
are using money of the taxpayers of the United States of America in
this bill, $414 million. And we still have management problems. I agree
that Mayor Williams is working diligently and making a bona fide
effort, but if we look at who is still in charge, the upper level, what
they call the ``excepted service'' positions, in other words, these are
the people that can be hired and fired by the mayor, as opposed to
through a civil service system.
The Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs still has 62
percent of the upper level people who are holdovers from the prior
administration and administrations that had these severe problems with
how they handled taxpayers' money.
{time} 1445
In the Department of Employment Services, two-thirds, two-thirds are
still management holdovers. In the Office of Contracting and
Procurement, two-thirds are holdovers. In the Department of Public
Works, 62 percent. There is a lot of change that has not happened yet.
There is a lot of savings the District can achieve in its own budget,
and we are trying everything we can to help them to do that.
But remember, you ought to come to this Congress, and if you are
wanting people to do something because you are the Nation's Capital,
you ought to show what you have done for yourself. We had, I believe it
was $330 million in past years, that this Congress provided to the
District for management reforms to achieve savings, and we had the
General Accounting Office go in a few months ago and say, okay, we
spent $330 million supposedly to create savings beyond that figure. How
much savings can you find?
GAO said, well, you spent $330 million, and the savings were supposed
to be $200 million annually. What was actually achieved was about $1.5
million annually. You spend $330 million, and you get back $1.5
million? That is not a good investment by the taxpayers. The District
needs more focus on getting its own House in order. It is making
progress, but it has not made near enough. It needs more focus on that,
rather than accusing the Congress of not doing its job.
Mr. Chairman, I ask support for this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we debated the D.C. bill six
times on the floor, and it was vetoed twice last year. The principal
issue was needle exchanges. We are going to have the ranking member of
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and for many years the
chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the
Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Los Angeles, California
(Mr. Dixon), explain how important this needle exchange program is and
why the amendment that is going to be offered will not work.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Los Angeles,
California (Mr. Dixon).
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
time.
This is the traditional day that when the city is wrong, it is wrong;
and when the city is right, it is wrong.
The bill provides to allow the city of Washington D.C. to have a
needle exchange program to use its own funds and private funds. The
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) is going to offer an amendment that
basically says within 330 yards of 14 designated areas, that you shall
not be able to implement the needle exchange program. It is really a
fox in sheep's clothing. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) in the
full committee voted against the program, so he is not here to in fact
assist the needle exchange program in any way or for good public policy
reasons.
When the gentleman shows you a chart later, he will have designated
some schools that in fact one will not be allowed within 330 yards to
provide needle exchange programs. But that is only one element of the
amendment. There are 13 others. So when you add that to the list, and
you consider that Washington, D.C., is only 66 square miles, that
leaves about five positions that you can exchange needles: the Mall,
Soldiers' Home, Bolling Air Force Base, St. Elizabeth's, Washington
Hospital Center, and Rock Creek Park.
The problem with the D.C. bill is that no one comes to the floor
straight; they come with a cosmetic reason for whatever they want to
do. This Tiahrt amendment is designed to make the needle exchange
program ineffective. It should be voted down.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) explained,
the amendment that we will be considering precludes the ability of any
needle exchange program to effectively operate.
Now, why is that important? It is important because we have hundreds,
thousands, of residents of the District of Columbia who are infected
with the ignominious disease of AIDS, and in the District the
population where the AIDS epidemic is growing fastest are women and
children.
Imagine what it must be like to realize that your baby is infected
with AIDS. Now, you can blame the mother, you can blame whoever, you
can blame society; but the reality is that there is horrible, unjust
suffering going on, and the principal reason for that pain and
suffering is because of the use of dirty needles.
The only program we have found that actually works, and we have any
number of studies that proves that it works, is when an organization
offers clean needles. But you only get a clean needle if you give back
a dirty needle, and you have to get into a program. It is access to
drug treatment, and it is working.
Mr. Chairman, we might like to turn our backs and pretend this stuff
does not go on and pretend there are easier ways to do it and ways that
are less controversial, but there are not. They are not working as
effectively, and that is why the administration stood up and kept
vetoing this bill, because we have to care about people who are
suffering and dying needlessly, if there is a way that we can stop it.
This program can stop it, and that is why we ought to let it
function, but not with any Federal funds, not with any public money,
all with private donations. That is the point, that is how the program
is being operated. But it
[[Page H7035]]
ought to be allowed to operate. That is only fair. And the D.C.
Government ought to be allowed to decide how it is going to cope with
its problem, and not let us gain political advantage by superseding
their judgment and preventing them from being able to address a
critically important, desperate need within the District of Columbia.
That is why this issue is so important.
There are funding issues. Maybe we can take care of the funding
issues in conference. We are going to try to do that. It is silly, when
we have a $2.2 trillion surplus, a $1.7 trillion budget, we cannot find
$31 million to make the District whole on a contractual obligation that
we agreed to assume.
So I trust we will be able to find that money. The District is
getting on its feet. It has got a great Mayor, it has got a good city
council. It is getting a lot of good people in running its government.
If we believe in democracy, if we believe that the people have the
power to regulate, to run their own affairs, that they will elect the
people that will provide the kind of quality of life and security in
the future for their children that they decide they want, that is what
this is all about.
Let us extricate ourselves from these matters where we ought not be
involved. Let us do right for the District of Columbia. Until we fix
this bill, I do not think we can support it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, drug problems in the District of Columbia
are America's problem, because Washington, D.C., is America's capital.
I am sorry to hear that the gentleman says that if you do not have a
program to exchange drug needles, you are causing pain and suffering.
No. Pain and suffering is caused by the use of drugs. Crime is caused
by the use of drugs. Parents failing to take care of their kids is
caused by the use of drugs.
You are saying dirty needles cause pain and suffering? No, people
injecting themselves with drugs cause pain and suffering. We are not
talking about sewing needles here; we are talking about hypodermic
syringes, needles for people to inject illegal drugs into themselves,
and a program operating in broad daylight out on public streets to do
these swaps. Bring in a dirty needle, get a clean needle, go shoot
yourself up.
I know a couple of people that the other day observed one of these
sites, and it was an area where there were residences and small
businesses. The van is there for a few hours, and just minutes after
the van they used for the needle exchange pulls away, you know what
pulled up? A school bus. It is a bus stop for school kids.
The D.C. Council passed its own law declaring drug-free zones. The
amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) just says those
areas that the District has already chosen to be drug-free zones should
not be used for these programs to exchange drug needles. The D.C.
Council defined them. For example, 1,000 feet around a youth center or
public library or public housing or a swimming pool or an elementary
school or vocational school or a video arcade, the D.C. Council says
those sites are supposed to be drug free zones. The amendment of the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) just says if that is supposed to be
a drug-free zone, what are you doing with a drug needle exchange
program taking place in the same spot?
I urge support of the bill; and when the time comes, I certainly will
support the amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in
the Congressional Record, pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate, and amendments printed in the House Report 106-790.
Amendments printed in the report may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the
reading of the bill, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4942
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, 2001, and
for other purposes, namely:
FEDERAL FUNDS
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for a
nationwide program to be administered by the Mayor for
District of Columbia resident tuition support, $14,000,000,
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 for 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 not more than 5 percent of
the funds may be used to pay administrative expenses.
Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children
The paragraph under the heading ``Federal Payment for
Incentives for Adoption of Children'' in Public Law 106-113,
approved November 29, 1999 (113 Stat. 1501), is amended to
read as follows: ``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, 2002, and shall be used to carry out all
of the provisions of title 38, except for section 3808, of
the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Support Act of 2000, D.C. Bill
13-679, enrolled June 12, 2000.
Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia
For a Federal payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia, $1,500,000, of which $250,000 shall be
for payment to a mentoring program and for hotline services;
$500,000 shall be for payment to a youth development program
with a character building curriculum; $500,000 to remain
available until expended, shall be for the design,
construction, and maintenance of a trash rack system to be
installed at the Hickey Run stormwater outfall; and $250,000
shall be for payment to support a program to assist homeless
individuals to become productive, taxpaying citizens in the
District of Columbia.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee
Operations
For salaries and expenses of the District of Columbia
Corrections Trustee, $134,300,000 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) of
which $1,000,000 is to fund an initiative to improve case
processing in the District of Columbia criminal justice
system: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, funds appropriated in this Act for the District of
Columbia Corrections 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
any remaining interest earned on the Federal payment made to
the Trustee under the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, 1998, 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, $99,500,000 to be allocated as follows: for the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $7,709,000; for the
District of Columbia Superior Court, $72,399,000; for the
District of Columbia Court System, $16,892,000; and
$2,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002, for
capital improvements for District of Columbia courthouse
facilities: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act or
in any other Act shall be available for the purchase,
installation or operation of an Integrated Justice
Information System until a detailed plan and design has been
submitted 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
[[Page H7036]]
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), $34,387,000, 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 $2,500,000 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 shall use funds
provided in this Act under the heading ``Federal Payment to
the District of Columbia Courts'' (other than the $2,500,000
provided under such heading for capital improvements for
District of Columbia courthouse facilities), to make payments
described under this heading for obligations incurred during
any fiscal year: 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: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia Courts shall implement the recommendations in the
General Accounting Office Report GAO/AIMD/OGC-99-226
regarding payments to court-appointed attorneys and shall
report to the Office of Management and Budget and to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees quarterly on the
status of these reforms.
Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency for the District of Columbia
(including transfer of funds)
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) $115,752,000, of which $69,871,000 shall be for
necessary expenses of Community 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; $18,778,000 shall be
transferred to the Public Defender Service; and $27,103,000
shall be available to the Pretrial Services Agency: Provided,
That of the amount provided under this heading, $22,161,000
shall be used to improve pretrial defendant and post-
conviction offender supervision, enhance drug testing and
sanctions-based treatment programs and other treatment
services, expand intermediate sanctions and offender re-entry
programs, continue planning and design proposals for a
residential Sanctions Center and improve administrative
infrastructure, including information technology; and
$836,000 of the $22,161,000 referred to in this proviso is
for the Public Defender Service: 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: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 446 of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act or any provision of subchapter III of chapter 13 of
title 31, United States Code, the use of interest earned on
the Federal payment made to the District of Columbia Offender
Supervision, Defender, and Court Services Agency under the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1998, by the Agency
during fiscal years 1998 and 1999 shall not constitute a
violation of such Act or such subchapter.
Federal Payment for Washington Interfaith Network
For a Federal payment to the Washington Interfaith Network
to reimburse the Network for costs incurred in carrying out
preconstruction activities at the former Fort Dupont
Dwellings and Additions, $1,000,000: Provided, That such
activities may include architectural and engineering studies,
property appraisals, environmental assessments, grading and
excavation, landscaping, paving, and the installation of
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewer lines, and other utilities:
Provided further, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall
make such payment only after the Network has received
matching funds from private sources (including funds provided
through loans) to carry out such activities in an aggregate
amount which is equal to the amount of such payment (as
certified by the Inspector General of the District of
Columbia) and has provided the Secretary of the Treasury with
a request for reimbursement which contains documentation
certified by the Inspector General of the District of
Columbia showing that the Network carried out the activities
and that the costs incurred in carrying out the activities
were equal to or less than the amount of the reimbursement
requested: Provided further, That none of the funds provided
under this heading may be obligated or expended after
December 31, 2001 (without regard to whether the activities
involved were carried out prior to such date).
Tax Reform in the District
For a Federal payment to the Mayor of the District of
Columbia for a study analyzing the District's tax structure,
and the anticipated impact upon the District's economy and
government of recent and potential tax changes, and of tax
simplification, $100,000, to remain available until expended.
This may include but not be limited to proposals made by the
District's Delegate to the House of Representatives.
Provided, That the Mayor shall enter into a contract for such
analysis only with a qualified independent auditor who is
experienced in analyzing tax sources and who has no other
affiliation with the District government.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Istook Printed in House Report 106-790
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-790 offered by
Mr. Istook:
Strike the item relating to ``Tax Reform in the District''.
In the item relating to ``Metrorail Construction (including
transfer of funds)'', strike ``$7,000,000'' and insert
``$7,100,000''.
In the item relating to ``Metrorail Construction (including
transfer of funds)'', strike ``$18,000,000'' and insert
``$17,900,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think 5 minutes will be necessary. I believe
this amendment will be adopted by unanimous consent and neither of us
will need the 5 minutes.
This simply removes an item for a study of the future tax structure
potential in the District and shifts the $100,000 in Federal funds that
was allocated for it to support the new Metro station that is planned
at the New York Avenue site.
{time} 1500
I believe there is no debate, and if that is the case I would ask
unanimous consent that we yield back the balance of our time and adopt
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond, but not in a critical manner. Mr.
Chairman, what we are withdrawing here is a study that was proposed
that was related to the idea of a D.C. commuter tax. There had been a
provision that was included in the subcommittee bill by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that said that if residents of suburban
Maryland or Virginia earned money in the District of Columbia they do
not have to pay state income taxes on that money to Virginia or
Maryland or basically any other State where they might reside. So it
meant every Member of Congress who earns their money here would not
have to pay any state income taxes on their income, until the District
was permitted to tax income they might earn in the District.
What we could have done is to suggest then that if that is the case
then
[[Page H7037]]
any resident of the District of Columbia that earns money in another
State would not pay taxes in D.C., and D.C. would have wound up worse
because the reverse flow of people finding jobs in the suburbs where
the economic growth is happening is even greater than economic
development in D.C. So there were problems with that. It was withdrawn.
There was going to be a further study. The gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook), upon consideration and discussion with the chair of the
authorizing committee, has decided not to do that study. I personally
would have preferred that we do a study that was broad based, looking
at D.C.'s long-term revenue needs. I think that needs to be done. I
think it could probably be done for $100,000. So I was hoping we would
do that, but the study ought to be done by organizations that are
located within the District of Columbia, private, nonprofit
organizations, probably nonpartisan. We could get maybe the Brookings
Institution and the Hudson Institute to collaborate. In doing so, they
could look at ways that we can raise sufficient revenues to ensure that
D.C. remains the economic core of the metropolitan Washington region
but also sustain the economic viability of the suburbs as well.
That is a long-term, mutually shared objective. I know that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is in agreement with that
objective. I would hope that we could find the money to put in this
bill to do that kind of a study, but I have no objection to the
manager's amendment and the decision of the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook) at this point to withdraw funding for this study.
No one on this side is going to object to the manager's amendment,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, any study that the District may desire to do certainly
they have the authority and the capability of doing whatever study. I
certainly would not agree with all of the characterizations of the
gentleman, but I certainly appreciate his interest in the economic
conditions in the District, as well as in the surrounding Northern
Virginia area that he represents.
However, I think we have all agreed that right now there is a high
priority with the District of the New York Avenue Metrorail station,
and if the District wants to do a study they can do it. In the
meantime, we would like to put this Federal contribution of the
$100,000 toward that Metro station at New York Avenue.
Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Payment for Simplified Personnel System
For a Federal payment to the Mayor of the District of
Columbia to study and design a system approved by the
Comptroller General for simplifying the administration of
personnel policies (including pay policies) with respect to
employees of the District government, $250,000: Provided,
That the Mayor shall carry out such study and design through
a contractor approved by the Comptroller General.
Metrorail Construction
(including transfer of funds)
For a contribution to the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority for construction of a Metrorail station
located at New York and Florida Avenues, Northeast,
$25,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$7,000,000 is appropriated under this heading and $18,000,000
shall be transferred by the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (DCFRMA)
from interest earned on accounts held by DCFRMA on behalf of
the District of Columbia government.
Federal Payment for National Museum of American Music
For a Federal payment to the Federal City Council for the
establishment of a National Museum of American Music,
$250,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
such funds shall be used for the costs of activities
necessary to complete the planning phase for such Museum,
including the costs of personnel, design projects,
environmental assessments, and the preparation of requests
for proposals: Provided further, That such funds shall be
deposited into a separate account of the Federal City Council
used exclusively for the establishment of such Museum:
Provided further, That the Secretary of the Treasury shall
make such payment only after the Federal City Council has
deposited matching donated funds from private sources into
the account in an aggregate amount which is equal to 200
percent of the amount appropriated herein (as certified by
the Inspector General of the District of Columbia.)
Presidential Inauguration
For a payment to the District of Columbia to reimburse the
District for expenses incurred in connection with
Presidential inauguration activities, $5,961,000, as
authorized by section 737(b) of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 824; D.C.
Code, sec. 1-1132), which shall be apportioned by the Chief
Financial Officer within the various appropriation headings
in this Act.
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: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, except for section 136(a) of this Act, the total
amount appropriated in this Act for operating expenses for
the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2001 under this
heading shall not exceed the lesser of the sum of the total
revenues of the District of Columbia for such fiscal year or
$5,689,276,000 (of which $192,804,000 shall be from intra-
District funds and $3,245,623,000 shall be from local funds):
Provided further, That the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority shall take
such steps as are necessary to assure that the District of
Columbia meets these requirements, including the apportioning
by the Chief Financial Officer of the appropriations and
funds made available to the District during fiscal year 2001,
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.
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 from local funds: 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 2001 under section 102 of such Act, as determined
by the Comptroller General (as described in GAO letter report
B-279095.2).
Governmental Direction and Support
Governmental direction and support, $194,621,000 (including
$161,022,000 from local funds, $20,424,000 from Federal
funds, and $13,175,000 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: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order
86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Office of the Chief
Technology Officer's delegated small purchase authority shall
be $500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia
government may not require the Office of the Chief Technology
Officer 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 $303,000 and no fewer than 5 FTEs
shall be available exclusively to support the Labor-
Management Partnership Council: Provided further, That no
funds except those already encumbered shall be available for
the Maximus, Inc., revenue recovery services contract
(Contract GF 98104) until such time as the contract is
renegotiated to require Maximus, Inc., to recover maximum
revenue first for Medicaid reimbursable special education
transportation costs, second for Medicaid reimbursable
special education residential placement costs, and third for
the Medicaid reimbursable costs of Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities Administration clients.
Economic Development and Regulation
Economic development and regulation, $205,638,000
(including $53,562,000 from local
[[Page H7038]]
funds, $92,378,000 from Federal funds, and $59,698,000 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
Amendment Act of 1997 (D.C. Law 12-26): 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, and 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
$762,346,000 (including $591,365,000 from local funds,
$24,950,000 from Federal funds, and $146,031,000 from other
funds): Provided further, 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
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 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 $100,000 shall be available for inmates
released on medical and geriatric parole: Provided further,
That commencing on December 31, 2000, 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.
Public Education System
Public education system, including the development of
national defense education programs, $995,418,000 (including
$821,367,000 from local funds, $147,643,000 from Federal
funds, and $26,408,000 from other funds), to be allocated as
follows: $769,443,000 (including $628,809,000 from local
funds, $133,490,000 from Federal funds, and $7,144,000 from
other funds), for the public schools of the District of
Columbia; $200,000 from local funds for the District of
Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; $1,679,000 from local
funds for the State Education Office, $14,000,000 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; $105,000,000 from local funds for public
charter schools: Provided, That there shall be quarterly
disbursement of funds to the D.C. public charter schools,
with the first payment to occur within 15 days of the
beginning of each fiscal year: Provided further, That the
D.C. public charter schools will report enrollment on a
quarterly basis: Provided further, That the quarterly payment
of October 15, 2000, shall be fifty (50) percent of each
public charter school's annual entitlement based on its
unaudited October 5 enrollment count: Provided further, 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 public education in accordance with the School
Reform Act of 1995 (D.C. Code, sec. 31-2853.43(A)(2)(D);
Public Law 104-134, as amended): Provided further, That the
Mayor of the District of Columbia shall convene a task force
to recommend changes, which shall be released by December 31,
2000, to the School Reform Act of 1995, for the purpose of
instituting a funding mechanism which will account for the
projected growth of charter schools: Provided further, That
$480,000 of this amount shall be available to the District of
Columbia Public Charter School Board for administrative
costs: Provided further, That $76,433,000 (including
$44,691,000 from local funds, $13,199,000 from Federal funds,
and $18,543,000 from other funds) shall be available for the
University of the District of Columbia: Provided further,
That $200,000 is allocated for the East of the River Campus
Assessment Study, $1,000,000 for the Excel Institute Adult
Education Program to be used by the Institute for
construction and to acquire construction services provided by
the General Services Administration on a reimbursable basis,
$500,000 for the Adult Education State Plan, $650,000 for The
Saturday Academy Pre-College Program, and $481,000 for the
Strengthening of Academic Programs; and $26,459,000
(including $25,208,000 from local funds, $550,000 from
Federal funds and $701,000 other funds) for the Public
Library: Provided further, That the $1,020,000 enhancement
shall be allocated such that; $500,000 is used for facilities
improvements for 8 of the 26 library branches, $235,000 for
13 FTEs for the continuation of the Homework Helpers Program,
$166,000 for 3 FTEs in the expansion of the Reach Out And
Roar (ROAR) service to license day care homes, and $119,000
for 3 FTEs to expand literacy support into branch libraries:
Provided further, That $2,204,000 (including $1,780,000 from
local funds, $404,000 from Federal funds and $20,000 from
other funds) shall be available 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 2001 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, 2001, 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 $2,200,000 is allocated to the
Temporary Weighted Student Formula to fund 344 additional
slots for pre-K students: Provided further, That $50,000 is
allocated to fund a conference on learning support for
children ages 3-4 in September 2000 hosted jointly by the
District of Columbia Public Schools and District of Columbia
public charter schools: Provided further, That no local funds
in this Act shall be used to administer a system wide
standardized test more than once in FY 2001: Provided
further, That no less than $389,219,000 shall be expended on
local schools through the Weighted Student Formula: 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: Provided
further, That section 441 of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 798; D.C.
Code, sec. 47-101), is amended as follows:
(a) The third sentence is amended to read as follows:
``However, the fiscal year for the Armory Board shall begin
on the first day of January and shall end on the thirty-first
day of December of each calendar year, and, beginning the
first day of July 2001, the fiscal year for the District of
Columbia Public Schools and the District of Columbia Public
Charter Schools shall begin on the first day of July and end
on the thirtieth day of June of each calendar year.''.
(b) One new sentence is added at the end to read as
follows: ``The District of Columbia Public Schools shall take
appropriate action to ensure that its financial books are
closed by June 30, 2003.''.
Human Support Services
Human support services, $1,532,204,000 (including
$633,897,000 from local funds, $881,589,000 from Federal
funds, and $16,718,000 from other funds): Provided, That
$25,836,000 of this appropriation, to remain
[[Page H7039]]
available until expended, shall be available solely for
District of Columbia employees' disability compensation:
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.):
Provided further, That $1,250,000 shall be paid to the Doe
Fund for the operation of its Ready, Willing, and Able
Program in the District of Columbia as follows: $250,000 to
cover debt owed by the District of Columbia government for
services rendered shall be paid to the Doe Fund within 15
days of the enactment of this Act; and $1,000,000 shall be
paid in equal monthly installments by the 15th day of each
month: Provided further, That $400,000 shall be available for
the administrative costs associated with implementation of
the Drug Treatment Choice Program established pursuant to
section 4 of the Choice in Drug Treatment Act of 2000, signed
by the Mayor on April 20, 2000 (D.C. Act 13-329): Provided
further, That $7,000,000 shall be available for deposit in
the Addiction Recovery Fund established pursuant to section 5
of the Choice in Drug Treatment Act of 2000, signed by the
Mayor on April 20, 2000 (D.C. Act 13-329).
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, $278,242,000
(including $265,078,000 from local funds, $3,328,000 from
Federal funds, and $9,836,000 from other funds): Provided
further, That this appropriation shall not be available for
collecting ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and
places of business: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be
available for a commercial sector recycling initiative:
Provided further, That $250,000 shall be available to
initiate a recycling education campaign: Provided further,
That $10,000 shall be available for community clean-up kits:
Provided further, That $190,000 shall be available to restore
a 3.5 percent vacancy rate in Parking Services: Provided
further, That $170,000 shall be available to plant 500 trees:
Provided further, That $118,000 shall be available for two
water trucks: Provided further, That $150,000 shall be
available for contract monitors and parking analysts within
Parking Services: Provided further, That $1,409,000 shall be
available for a neighborhood cleanup initiative: Provided
further, That $1,000,000 shall be available for tree
maintenance: Provided further, That $600,000 shall be
available for an anti-graffiti program: Provided further,
That $226,000 shall be available for a hazardous waste
program: Provided further, That $1,260,000 shall be available
for parking control aides: Provided further, That $400,000
shall be available for the Department of Motor Vehicles to
hire additional ticket adjudicators, conduct additional
hearings, and reduce the waiting time for hearings.
Receivership Programs
For all agencies of the District of Columbia government
under court ordered receivership, $389,528,000 (including
$234,913,000 from local funds, $135,555,000 from Federal
funds, and $19,060,000 from other funds).
Reserve
For replacement of funds expended, if any, during fiscal
year 2000 from the Reserve established by section 202(i) of
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995, Public Law 104-8,
$150,000,000: Provided, That none of these funds shall be
obligated or expended under this heading until (1) the
reductions from ``Operational Improvement Savings'',
``Management Reform Savings'', and ``Cafeteria Plan'' have
been achieved and the achievement certified by the District
of Columbia Inspector General; (2) the Chief Financial
Officer certifies that the reserve assets are not required to
replace funds expended in fiscal year 2000 from the Reserve
established by section 202(i) of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of
1995, Public Law 104-8; and (3) the District of Columbia
government enters into leases provided for under the heading
``Federal Payment for Waterfront Improvements'' in Public Law
105-277, approved October 21, 1998 (112 Stat. 2681-124), as
amended by section 164 of Public Law 106-113, approved
November 29, 1999 (113 Stat. 1529): Provided further, That
the unexpended portion of the fiscal year 2000 reserve that
is carried over into fiscal year 2001 will free up local
funds in the fiscal year 2001 Reserve that can be used to
fund selected programs upon certification by the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia that: (1) the
Mayor will achieve operational improvement savings and
management reform productivity savings in the fiscal year
2001 Budget and Financial Plan, (2) the collection of
additional revenues within the fiscal year 2001 Budget and
Financial Plan will be achieved; and (3) agency expenditures
are monitored and fiscal challenges are addressed to the
satisfaction of the Chief Financial Office during fiscal year
2001. The programs that will be funded following
certification by the Chief Financial Officer are as follows:
Governmental Direction and Support, $4,163,000 (including
$621,000 for the Office of the Mayor; $1,042,000 for Human
Resource Development; $2,500,000 for the Office of Property
Management): Economic Development and Regulation, $3,496,000
(including $3,296,000 for the Department of Housing and
Community Development; $200,000 for the Department of
Employment Services): Public Safety and Justice, $6,483,000
(including $200,000 for the Metropolitan Police Department,
$1,293,000 for the Fire and Emergency Medical Services
Department, $4,890,000 for Settlements and Judgments,
$100,000 for the Citizen Complaint Review Board): Public
Education System, $15,099,000 (including $12,079,000 for
Public Schools, $2,500,000 for the University of the District
of Columbia, $400,000 for the Public Library, $120,000 for
the Commission on the Arts and Humanities): Human Support
Services, $17,830,000 (including $4,245,000 for the
Department of Health, $1,511,000 for the Department of
Recreation and Parks, $574,000 for the Office on Aging,
$1,500,000 for the Office on Latino Affairs, $10,000,000 for
Children and Youth Investment Fund): Public Works, $4,050,000
(including $1,500,000 for the Department of Public Works,
$1,000,000 for the Department of Motor Vehicles, $1,550,000
for the Taxicab Commission): Receivership Programs,
$19,300,000 (including $6,300,000 for Child and Family
Services, $13,000,000 for the Commission on Mental Health
Services): and Cafeteria Plan Savings, $5,000,000: Provided
further, That the freed-up appropriated funds in fiscal year
2001 from the reserve rollover shall be used to provide
funding in the following order: (1) the first $32,000,000
shall be used to provide in the following order, $6,300,000
to the LaShawn Receivership, $13,000,000 to the Commission on
Mental Health, $12,079,000 to the District of Columbia Public
Schools, and $621,000 to the Office of the Mayor, if the
Chief Financial Officer certifies that the first $32,000,000
is not required to replace funds expended in fiscal year 2000
from the Reserve established by section 202(i) of the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Act of 1995, Public Law 104-8; (2) the next
$37,189,000 shall be used to provide $37,189,000 to
Management Savings to the extent, if any, the Chief Financial
Officer determines the Management Savings is not achieving
the required savings, and the balance, if any, shall be
provided in the following order: $10,000,000 to the Children
Investment Trust, $1,511,000 to the Department of Parks and
Recreation, $1,293,000 to the Department of Fire and
Emergency Medical Services, $120,000 to the Commission on the
Arts and Humanities, $400,000 to the District of Columbia
Public Library, $574,000 to the Office on Aging, $3,296,000
to the Department of Housing and Community Development,
$200,000 to the Department of Employment Services, $2,500,000
to the University of the District of Columbia, $1,500,000 to
the Department of Public Works, $1,000,000 to the Department
of Motor Vehicles, $4,245,000 to the Department of Health,
$1,500,000 to the Commission on Latino Affairs, $1,550,000 to
the Taxicab Commission, $2,500,000 to the Office of Property
Management, and $5,000,000 for the savings associated with
the implementation of the Cafeteria Plan, if the Chief
Financial Officer certifies that the $37,189,000 is not
required to replace funds expended in fiscal year 2000 from
the Reserve established by section 202(i) of the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-8, in fiscal year 2000, and that
all the savings are being achieved from the Management
Savings; (3) the next $10,000,000 shall be used to provide
$6,232,000 to Operational Improvement to the extent, if any,
the Chief Financial Officer determines the Operational
Improvement is not achieving the required savings, and the
balance, if any, shall be provided in the following order:
$100,000 to the Civilian Complaint Review Board, $200,000 to
the Metropolitan Police Department for the Emergency Response
Team, $1,042,000 to be used for Training, and $4,890,000 to
the Settlement and Judgments Funds, if the Chief Financial
Officer certifies that the $6,232,000 is not required to
replace funds expended in fiscal year 2000 from the Reserve
established by section 202(i) of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of
1995, Public Law 104-8, in fiscal year 2000 and that all the
savings are being achieved from the Operational Improvement
Savings; and (4) the balance shall be used for Pay-As-You-Go
Capital Funds in lieu of capital financing if the Chief
Financial Officer certifies that the balance is not required
to replace funds expended in fiscal year 2000 from the
Reserve established by section 202(i) of the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-8: Provided further, That section
202(j) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Act of 1995, approved April 17,
1995 (109 Stat. 109; D.C. Code, sec. 47-392.2(j)), is amended
as follows:
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, $243,238,000 from
local funds: Provided further, That for equipment leases, the
Mayor may finance $19,232,000 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
[[Page H7040]]
exceed 5 years: Provided further, That $2,000,000 is
allocated to the Metropolitan Police Department, $4,300,000
for the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department,
$1,622,000 for the Public Library, $2,010,000 for the
Department of Parks and Recreation, $7,500,000 for the
Department of Public Works and $1,800,000 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,
$39,300,000 from 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, $1,140,000
from local funds.
Presidential Inauguration
For reimbursement for necessary expenses incurred in
connection with Presidential inauguration activities as
authorized by section 737(b) of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act, Public Law 93-198, as amended, approved December
24, 1973 (87 Stat. 824, and D.C. Code, sec. 1-1803),
$5,961,000, which shall be apportioned by the Chief Financial
Officer within the various appropriation headings in this
Act.
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.
Wilson Building
For expenses associated with the John A. Wilson Building,
$8,409,000.
Optical and Dental Insurance Payments
For optical and dental insurance payments, $2,675,000 from
local funds.
Management Supervisory Service
For management supervisory service, $13,200,000 from local
funds, to be transferred by the Mayor of the District of
Columbia among the various appropriation headings in this Act
for which employees are properly payable.
Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund Transfer Payment
There is transferred $61,406,000 to the Tobacco Settlement
Trust Fund established pursuant to section 2302 of the
Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund Establishment Act of 1999,
effective October 20, 1999 (D.C. Law 13-38; to be codified at
D.C. Code, sec. 6-135), to be spent pursuant to local law.
Operational Improvements Savings (Including Managed Competition)
The Mayor and the Council in consultation with the Chief
Financial Officer and the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, shall
make reductions of $10,000,000 for operational improvements
savings in local funds to one or more of the appropriation
headings in this Act.
Management Reform Savings
The Mayor and the Council in consultation with the Chief
Financial Officer and the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, shall
make reductions of $37,000,000 for management reform savings
in local funds to one or more of the appropriation headings
in this Act.
Cafeteria Plan Savings
For the implementation of a Cafeteria Plan pursuant to
Federal law, a reduction of $5,000,000 in local funds.
ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS
Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct
For operation of the Water and Sewer Authority and the
Washington Aqueduct, $275,705,000 from other funds (including
$230,614,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority and
$45,091,000 for the Washington Aqueduct) of which $41,503,000
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, $140,725,000, as authorized by
the Act entitled ``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,
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.), $223,200,000: 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, $10,968,000
from other funds: 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, $123,548,000 of which $45,313,000 shall
be derived by transfer from the general fund, and $78,235,000
from other funds: Provided, That no appropriated amounts and
no amounts from or guaranteed by the District of Columbia
government (including the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority) may be
made available to the Corporation (through reprogramming,
transfers, loans, or any other mechanism) which are not
otherwise provided for under this heading.
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),
$11,414,000 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.
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), $1,808,000 from other
funds.
Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund
For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund,
$52,726,000 from other funds.
Capital Outlay
(Including Rescissions)
For construction projects, an increase of $1,077,282,000 of
which $806,787,000 is from local funds, $66,446,000 is from
highway trust funds and $204,049,000 is from Federal funds,
and a rescission of $55,208,000 from local funds appropriated
under this heading in prior fiscal years, for a net amount of
$1,022,074,000 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, 2002,
except authorizations for projects as to which funds have
been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30,
2002: Provided further, That upon expiration of any such
project authorization, the funds provided herein for the
project shall lapse.
Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 40, line 19 be
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 12.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 printed in the Congressional Record
offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
In the item relating to ``District of Columbia Health and
Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation'', strike ``funds:'' and
all that follows and insert a period.
Strike section 164 (and redesignate the succeeding
provisions accordingly).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
[[Page H7041]]
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment
is, again, to let the District of Columbia deal with its most severe
problems, and one of its most severe problems has to do with the
operation of D.C. General Hospital.
Mr. Chairman, within the District of Columbia, there are over 80,000
people who have no health insurance, and D.C. General is their health
care of last resort. When they go to the hospital, it is too often
because they have a gunshot wound, because they have been physically
attacked, because women have been raped, because they have serious drug
problems, because they have problems that take acute attention and
oftentimes very expensive care. Because these people generally do not
have the money to pay for their health care, D.C. General has gone
broke, as has Southeast Community Hospital, a number of the health
clinics in the community.
We are talking about places like Anacostia primarily, very low-income
section of the city. Some people are in desperate poverty, even in
today's world in the capital city. So a public benefit corporation was
set up to see if they cannot manage these health care facilities and
find a way to finance them. The PBC has not been successful in doing
that. It is unfortunate. It needs to be corrected, but this bill tries
to correct it without consultation with the mayor, the D.C. council and
the outside health care consultants who have been looking at this
problem for years.
One of the ways it attempts to correct it is by cutting off its
funding, terminating its line of credit. So what happens? The hospital,
we are told, will become insolvent, will shut down within a year if
this amendment is included in the bill and the bill is enacted.
Okay. Fine. It is not being run well. It is losing money, but tell
me, Mr. Chairman, what do we do with the thousands of people who go to
D.C. General as their health care of last resort? No one else wants to
handle them. No one else wants to handle these gunshot victims. No one
else wants to handle these drug addicts. No one else wants to handle
these people who have no money to pay for their health care.
So what are we going to do with them? Are we just going to let them
loose without health care? We are going to send them to other hospitals
that do not take them, that do not want them, that are not going to
treat them. So that is my problem with this solution. It is too easy.
It was not done by D.C. because D.C. is held accountable by its voters
for coming up with constructive alternatives. This is too easy an
alternative: Cut it off, shut it down.
That is not the way to handle a very difficult, complex problem. So
what I want to do with this amendment is strike the language, leave it
to D.C. to deal with. Do not come up with solutions that are going to
make the situation worse. Do not have that pain and suffering of people
who have no health care and desperately need it on our hands. We have
no business getting involved in this issue, unless we have a
constructive alternative. We do not, so we ought to strike the
language.
Point of Order
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment as to the underlying merits. I will offer at an appropriate
time a written statement for the record.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because
it violates the rules of the House since it calls for the en bloc
consideration of two different paragraphs in the bill. The precedents
of the House are clear in this matter: Amendments to a paragraph or
section are not in order until such paragraph or section has been read.
Cannon's Precedents, Volume 8, section 2354.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. If no other Member desires to be heard, for the reasons
stated by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the point of order
is sustained.
Are there any other amendments to this portion of the bill?
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are we at general
provisions where an amendment can be at the desk and now be pursued?
The CHAIRMAN. When the Clerk begins to read again, he will begin at
that portion.
The Clerk will read section 101.
The Clerk read as follows:
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.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Norton
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 22 printed in the Congressional Record
offered by Ms. Norton:
Strike ``General Provisions'' and all that follows through
the last section before the short title.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. This amendment touches portions of the bill that have
not yet been read or considered. Does the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) ask unanimous consent for its present
consideration?
Ms. NORTON. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. I have no
objection to the gentlewoman proceeding for, I believe, the agreed upon
time was for 5 minutes to certainly explain her amendment and her
position.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, pending the point of order, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized
for 5 minutes on her amendment.
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that there has been a time
agreement for 20 minutes divided equally. If I may have unanimous
agreement on that time?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly agree to that. I
misstated on the time. I agree to a unanimous consent request of 20
minutes to be divided 10 minutes per side.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time on the amendment of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) will be 20
minutes divided equally.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. That will include any amendments thereto.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce a democracy amendment that will
wipe out all riders, most of them operational riders, that are outdated
or irrelevant. Members would not commit themselves one way or the other
on the substance of any underlying provision by voting to eliminate
them all.
The chairman announced on the floor just a few minutes ago that he
has himself begun to look at these provisions and has found some of
them to be outmoded. I appreciate that he is now looking into the bill
in this way.
In his budget, as transmitted, the President offered to work with the
Congress and the District to identify and limit at the very least the
number of general provisions or attachments not only to be consistent
with the principle of home rule but also because most are so old that
they have been overtaken by events, or they are now a part of D.C. or
Federal law.
Last year, the chairman indicated that riders in the D.C.
appropriation reflected the fact that over many years, whoever was
President had been transmitting old riders and the chairman had simply
included what the President sent. Upon inspection, the White House
found that most of the attachments are no longer applicable. Many
already exist in Federal law or the D.C. Code. Example, section 114
requires council approval of capital project borrowing; but that is now
required by the D.C. code.
Other riders should be deleted because they are incorporated into the
D.C. budget text or the local budget act, or will be proposed locally
this year. Example, restrictions on the use
[[Page H7042]]
of official vehicles, a restriction required by Congress and adopted in
the local Budget Support Act.
Still, other riders should be deleted because they are one-time
provisions, are no longer applicable or duplicate existing Federal law.
Example, the bill says appropriations or obligations that expire at the
end of the year unless otherwise stated. Yet this matter is covered by
Federal law.
Other provisions should be deleted because they are issues of local
home rule and/or should be deleted to ensure that the District is
treated the same as any other State or local jurisdiction. Some of
these are social riders, such as voting rights. Most, however, are
operational matters normally left to local jurisdictions. The democracy
amendment I offer today would eradicate all of these riders, most of
them operational and out of date or redundant of current law.
{time} 1515
No Member would answer for any one of them, because the amendment is
a democracy and autonomy amendment that does not address any
substantive issue or specific provision. However, we will surely answer
for the piling on of amendments that are already in local or Federal
law, or corpses, left over from prior years and circumstances and
administrations that are dead and gone.
Mr. Chairman, District residents gave themselves a new start with a
new mayor and a reconstructed city council. I ask the House to respond
with a new bill that does not hang on the back of today's cities,
tails, and times it has thrown off.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, basically, the gentlewoman representing the District of
Columbia has offered an amendment to strike out all of the provisions
after the appropriating paragraphs, all of the substantive provisions
in this bill; and basically, as I believe she stated, there are two
categories. One of them are so-called social riders, such as the
concern with programs to exchange drug needles out on the public
streets, and programs such as the marijuana initiative that the
District in a referendum adopted, which this Congress has expressly
disapproved and said it shall not go into effect. Other provisions are
not so-called social riders, but they are provisions that have been
carried on this bill for a number of years because they have not been
enacted into substantive law, where this would be the controlling
standard if they were not in the bill.
Now, I realize that the gentlewoman says, well, these are old things
to be done away with; they are not needed anymore. We went through
those provisions before this bill was offered this year; and we wiped
out two dozen, two dozen provisions that have been carried on this bill
for years, that I agree, fit the description of things that were
outdated, outmoded, duplicative, and no longer necessary. If there are
any others of those that still remain, we want to take them out too;
but we are not satisfied that that is the case.
For example, we do have provisions in this bill to make it clear that
all contracts regarding the District are a matter of public record. We
had a circumstance, Mr. Chairman, just a few weeks ago when the former
head of the Public Benefit Corporation, which operates the D.C. General
Hospital, said, since you fired me, I am entitled to $1 million, and
people said, where is the contract? And people could not find it. It
should have been public record.
We had testimony in a hearing from the control board that is supposed
to be a repository of these, and they said, we never saw such a
contract. And get this: the control board, headed by the former vice
chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has been writing checks for
millions of dollars not budgeted, not approved, for millions of
dollars, as I mentioned before, to keep this facility afloat, despite
years of efforts by this Congress, years and years by this Congress
saying, they are wasting money over there, it is a sink hole, they have
not fixed it, and the control board continued writing millions of
dollars worth of checks.
There were no signed agreements, there were no memoranda, there were
no security agreements, there was no promissory note, there was no
statement of collateral, there was nothing, nothing, for about $200
million of outlay of public money, not budgeted, not authorized by law,
and they did not even have any sort of written agreements for it.
So of course we need a provision that says, all of these contracts
are a matter of public record. If the District or the control board is
going to loan money to the Public Benefit Corporation for the D.C.
General Hospital, they ought to have at least one piece of paper that
reflects why they wrote all of these millions of dollars of checks. All
contracts are a matter of public record. That is an example of one of
the provisions that the gentlewoman wishes to strike.
Also, a restriction saying, we do not use this public money for
personal cooks, chauffeurs or other servants. They cannot use it for
any sole-source contracts. They cannot renew contracts or extend them
without taking competitive bids. Let us protect the taxpayer from
sweetheart deals.
Now, we can be satisfied that some provisions are actually in the law
elsewhere so that they do not need to be carried in this bill. That is
why we wiped out two dozen of them that have been carried year after
year; and we want to get rid of all of these and have them in
substantive law, but they are not there yet.
That is just an example, Mr. Chairman, of the provisions of the
gentlewoman's amendment, along with many others that we will be
discussing later, would wipe out all in one block.
As well as reserving my point of order against this amendment, Mr.
Chairman, as an improper way to bring issues up before this House, I
certainly oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If I may respond, the gentleman has named what amounts to violations
of D.C. law and violations of what is required in this appropriation
attachment. All that demonstrates is having it in an attached
provision, does not get the provision enforced.
The point is, is it a matter of D.C. law, and is it a matter of
Federal law? Once it is a matter of law, anything else we do to make it
a matter of law is redundant, a law that is already there. And if one
has a complaint about sole-source contracts, and I certainly would, if
one has a complaint about competitive bids, and I certainly would, then
you have to go to those who are not enforcing the law, not simply pile
on attachments, which also do not enforce the law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offered this democracy
amendment in the full Committee on Appropriations, and I appreciate the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) offering it
today on the House floor, because she is the democratically elected
representative of the District of Columbia, and she well knows that
most of the provisions in this appropriations bill do not belong in any
Federal appropriations bill.
There are 72 provisions at last count, 17 new ones in the bill this
time. We have a couple dozen provisions that are either already part of
Federal law, other parts of Federal law that do not need to be here for
any purpose, or are in the D.C. Code. D.C. is legally required to do
these things. It is in their law. What are we doing keeping this stuff
in the D.C. appropriations bill? It is sort of just making sure that
that heel stays deep on D.C.'s throat so that they do not ever think
that they can run their own affairs.
Let us get rid of this junk. It is detritus. It does not belong on an
appropriations bill. There are so many of these examples, punitive
examples where we tell them what to do with their own vehicles, how
much allowance for privately owned vehicles, how fuel-efficient
automobiles have to be. It is all stuff that is contained in other
places, or it ought not to be contained anyplace.
Now, there are some controversial issues included in this amendment.
There is a domestic partnership, tough
[[Page H7043]]
issue. But the reality is that 3,000 employers across the country
offer domestic partnership coverage. All kind of States and localities.
I was not given those numbers this year, but we know the numbers; and
it is a whole bunch of States and localities that do this. Why are we
telling the District that it cannot? We do not turn around and tell
anybody in the jurisdictions that we represent that they cannot do
this; but we tell D.C. they cannot do it, because we are not
accountable to them. They cannot do anything to fight back.
Mr. Chairman, that is why this democracy amendment is in order, and
that is why it is called a democracy amendment. We believe that people
ought to be able to run their own affairs, that the power comes not
from the State to the people, but from the people to the government.
Then let the people of the District of Columbia be empowered to run
their own government and get rid of this extraneous stuff. It does not
belong here. Treat D.C. residents the way we treat our own
constituents. That is all we are asking. That is the bottom line of
this amendment. Do unto others as you would do unto yourself.
Mr. Chairman, we would not do it to our constituents; we should not
do it to D.C. residents.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the subcommittee chairman
for the provisions he has put in the bill, and I oppose the amendment.
The fact of the matter is, there has been an ongoing effort to expand
charter schools in the District of Columbia. It is one of the most
successful efforts in the United States. We have had a policy for a
number of years, when the D.C. government closes a school, to allow the
people who have charter school programs to have an opportunity to use
the unused school building, and that policy has been flouted. It has
not been put into effect. The chairman, in the bill, is trying to honor
that agreement and get the D.C. Government off the dime to allow the
unused school buildings, under proper circumstances, to be used by the
children of the District who are enrolled in charter schools.
I understand that if we drop this language, the charter school people
are going to be ignored. If we keep the language in, we will have an
opportunity to work out something reasonable, so I commend the chairman
for his language.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague's
amendment, and I thank her for her leadership on these issues.
I want to address just one provision in the gentlewoman's democracy
amendment, the domestic partnership health benefits.
At a time when 44 million people in our country lack health care
coverage, this House has decided that it will erect new barriers for
certain citizens of our capital city to obtain health care insurance.
They have decided to prohibit the implementation of the District's plan
to extend health care coverage to domestic partners of city employees,
and I must ask why. Congress stands as the only barrier between
affordable health care for countless families of city employees. This
stand could mean the difference between having a sensible health care
plan or no plan at all; it could mean the difference between wellness
and illness, and in some cases, life and death.
As a proponent for health care for all, I am extremely disturbed by
this underlying provision. The employees of this city want nothing more
and nothing less than fairness and equality in the workplace. Allowing
access to the most basic of benefits, health care, does just that.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, on July 11, the D.C. Council passed a bill
which would require employers in the District of Columbia to provide
contraceptive coverage to their employees. Despite the fact that a good
conscience clause exempting employers who wish to waive this on
religious or moral obligations was offered, it was not adopted by the
council.
Furthermore, the debate got rather ugly and some council members
espoused anti-Catholic and anti-Christian beliefs in the course of this
discussion. One of the provisions that would be deleted by the
gentlewoman's amendment would be the requirement for the District of
Columbia City Council to go back and reconsider the conscience clause,
allowing for religious and moral obligations.
Now, if the concern is that there are not contraceptives available in
the District of Columbia, according to the Department of Health and
Human Services, there are 10 locations inside the District of Columbia
where contraceptives can be obtained free.
{time} 1530
If one is above the poverty level, one can pay a minimum cost for
contraceptives. Contraceptives are available in the District of
Columbia. There is no reason for the District, for the council to carry
on this debate about religious and moral convictions not being
applicable. Because if someone for some reason did not have access to
health care coverage that provided contraceptives, and they wanted to
obtain contraceptives, they could go to one of the 10 locations in the
District of Columbia where they could get free contraceptives at low
cost if they are above the poverty level.
So I think the gentlewoman's amendment to strike all provisions would
go way too fast and would not task the city council with going back and
reconsidering the conscience clause which I think they should could
consider.
So if one strikes all the general provisions, I think it is a bridge
too far, a step too far; and I think it is a wrong thing. I think we
should allow Congress, which has the constitutional requirement to
oversee this, to carry on with these general provisions as are listed
in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of her amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as I sat here to think about what could one say in 90
seconds, it occurs to me that each and every one of my colleagues ought
to consider this. None of us, not one of us in this body wants to take
ownership of every policy adopted by the D.C. City Council and its
mayor, not one of us. It is theirs to take, theirs to do.
But I suggest to my colleagues, to the extent that we include
provision 1, 2, 3, and 4 and leave out 5, 6, and 7, one could clearly
argue, well, apparently one is against 1 through 5, but one must be for
6, 7 and 8. That is not the case. It is not the case. I am not
responsible for what the D.C. City Council does, the D.C. City Council
is, and the voters of the District of Columbia are, any more than the
D.C. Council is responsible for what I do on this floor.
This is called a democracy amendment, because, in a democracy, we
believe that the people can be wrong. The people can disagree. The
people do not all need to be overseen by Big Brother. It seems to me
that is a conservative concept. It seems to me that is something that
people who want smaller government adopt as a premise, that Big Brother
ought not to be overseeing the District of Columbia. Vote for this
democracy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
There has always been, there always will be, there is now
bureaucratic opposition to any sort of reform, especially in school
reform that gives parents greater opportunities, greater freedoms.
The gentleman rails on about micromanaging this and avoidance of
that. What we are trying to do with, especially the charter school
provision, is
[[Page H7044]]
to give people, the individuals, the parents in the District of
Columbia, greater freedom, greater choice, not the bureaucrats, not the
educational system in general, but parents, individuals.
Is that not the best kind of freedom to give anybody? Is that not the
best kind of public policy to adopt here? It is not a hard hand of
government coming down on the District. It is the freedom we are going
to give parents in the District of Columbia to select charter schools
for their kids, the greatest opportunity we can possibly give to
anyone, including the residents of the District of Columbia.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Certainly, as I said before, I agree with the concept that, if there
are things in this bill that are carry-overs that serve no purpose any
further, then they should join the two dozen provisions that we have
already taken out that have been carried year after year in this bill.
We will continue to work with the other side of the aisle and our own
side to make sure that we do not carry anything that is not necessary.
Of course, the other issues are policy issues such as we have talked
about relating to drug needles, relating to contraceptive mandates that
exclude a conscience clause. Those issues are going to be brought up in
further amendments.
But as to this one, Mr. Chairman, I would like to close the debate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because
it violates the rules of the House since it calls for the en bloc
consideration of two different paragraphs in the bill.
The precedents of the House are clear in this matter: ``Amendments to
a paragraph or section are not in order until such paragraph or section
has been read,'' Cannon's Precedents, Volume 8, section 2354.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
desire to be heard on the point of order?
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the rules of the House. I
appreciate that I have been heard on what, for us, is a vital
amendment. I will continue to work with the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook) to eliminate such provisions as we can agree should be
eliminated.
The CHAIRMAN. For the reasons stated by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook), the point of order is sustained.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Petri) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4942) making
appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other
activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said
District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________