[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.

                          ____________________