[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 99 (Wednesday, July 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H7044-H7058]
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 the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 4942.
{time} 1528
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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
bill was open from pages 41 line 1 through page 41 line 3.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the
chairman or ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their
designees for the purpose of debate, the amendments printed in House
Report 106-790, and the following additional amendments, which shall be
debatable for the time specified, 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:
One, the additional amendment printed in the Congressional Record and
numbered 23, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes; and
Two, the additional amendment printed in the Congressional Record and
numbered 13, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 102. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all
vouchers covering expenditures of appropriations contained in
this Act shall be audited before payment by the designated
certifying official, and the vouchers as approved shall be
paid by checks issued by the designated disbursing official.
Sec. 103. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified
within an appropriation for particular purposes or objects of
expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified, shall
be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for
said purpose or object rather than an amount set apart
exclusively therefor.
Sec. 104. Appropriations in this Act shall be available,
when authorized by the Mayor, for allowances for privately
owned automobiles and motorcycles used for the performance of
official duties at rates established by the Mayor: Provided,
That such rates shall not exceed the maximum prevailing rates
for such vehicles as prescribed in the Federal Property
Management Regulations 101-7 (Federal Travel Regulations).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 53 line 14 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 text of the remainder of the bill from page 41, line 24, through
page 53 line 14 is as follows:
Sec. 105. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for
expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of
organizations concerned with the work of the District of
Columbia government, when authorized by the Mayor: Provided,
That in the case of the Council of the District of Columbia,
funds may be expended with the authorization of the chair of
the Council.
Sec. 106. There are appropriated from the applicable funds
of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for
making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have
been entered against the District of Columbia government:
Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be
construed as modifying or affecting the provisions of section
11(c)(3) of title XII of the
[[Page H7045]]
District of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (70
Stat. 78; Public Law 84-460; D.C. Code, sec. 47-
1812.11(c)(3)).
Sec. 107. (a) Requiring Mayor to Maintain Index.--Effective
with respect to fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal
year, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall maintain an
index of all employment personal services and consulting
contracts in effect on behalf of the District government, and
shall include in the index specific information on any
severance clause in effect under any such contract.
(b) Public Inspection.--The index maintained under
subsection (a) shall be kept available for public inspection
during regular business hours.
(c) Contracts Exempted.--Subsection (a) shall not apply
with respect to any collective bargaining agreement or any
contract entered into pursuant to such a collective
bargaining agreement.
(d) District Government Defined.--In this section, the term
``District government'' means the government of the District
of Columbia, including--
(1) any department, agency or instrumentality of the
government of the District of Columbia;
(2) any independent agency of the District of Columbia
established under part F of title IV of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act or any other agency, board, or
commission established by the Mayor or the Council;
(3) the Council of the District of Columbia;
(4) any other agency, public authority, or public benefit
corporation which has the authority to receive monies
directly or indirectly from the District of Columbia (other
than monies received from the sale of goods, the provision of
services, or the loaning of funds to the District of
Columbia); and
(5) the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority.
(e) No payment shall be made pursuant to any such contract
subject to subsection (a), nor any severance payment made
under such contract, if a copy of the contract has not been
filed in the index. Interested parties may file copies of
their contract or severance agreement in the index on their
own behalf.
Sec. 108. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 109. No funds appropriated in this Act for the
District of Columbia government for the operation of
educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or
for other educational purposes may be used to permit,
encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political
activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the
availability of school buildings for the use of any community
or partisan political group during non-school hours.
Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the
District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade,
salary, past work experience, and salary history are not
available for inspection by the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform, the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring and the District of Columbia of the Senate
Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Council of the
District of Columbia, or their duly authorized
representative.
Sec. 111. There are appropriated from the applicable funds
of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for
making payments authorized by the District of Columbia
Revenue Recovery Act of 1977 (D.C. Law 2-20; D.C. Code, sec.
47-421 et seq.).
Sec. 112. No part of this appropriation shall be used for
publicity or propaganda purposes or implementation of any
policy including boycott designed to support or defeat
legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature.
Sec. 113. At the start of the fiscal year, the Mayor shall
develop an annual plan, by quarter and by project, for
capital outlay borrowings: Provided, That within a reasonable
time after the close of each quarter, the Mayor shall report
to the Council of the District of Columbia and the Congress
the actual borrowings and spending progress compared with
projections.
Sec. 114. The Mayor shall not borrow any funds for capital
projects unless the Mayor has obtained prior approval from
the Council of the District of Columbia, by resolution,
identifying the projects and amounts to be financed with such
borrowings.
Sec. 115. The Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed
for capital projects for the operating expenses of the
District of Columbia government.
Sec. 116. None of the funds provided under this Act to the
agencies funded by this Act, both Federal and District
government agencies, that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2001, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for an
agency through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates
new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or
responsibility center; (3) establishes or changes allocations
specifically denied, limited or increased by Congress in the
Act; (4) increases funds or personnel by any means for any
program, project, or responsibility center for which funds
have been denied or restricted; (5) reestablishes through
reprogramming any program or project previously deferred
through reprogramming; (6) augments existing programs,
projects, or responsibility centers through a reprogramming
of funds in excess of $1,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is
less; or (7) increases by 20 percent or more personnel
assigned to a specific program, project or responsibility
center; unless the Appropriations Committees of both the
Senate and House of Representatives are notified in writing
30 days in advance of any reprogramming as set forth in this
section.
Sec. 117. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook,
chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or
employee of the District of Columbia government.
Sec. 118. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
shall be obligated or expended to procure passenger
automobiles as defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act
of 1980 (94 Stat. 1824; Public Law 96-425; 15 U.S.C.
2001(2)), with an Environmental Protection Agency estimated
miles per gallon average of less than 22 miles per gallon:
Provided, That this section shall not apply to security,
emergency rescue, or armored vehicles.
Sec. 119. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
provisions of the District of Columbia Government
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Law 2-139;
D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), enacted pursuant to section
422(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat.
790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(3)), shall
apply with respect to the compensation of District of
Columbia employees: Provided, That for pay purposes,
employees of the District of Columbia government shall not be
subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 120. No later than 30 days after the end of the first
quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council
of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 2001 revenue
estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year
2001. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002. The officially
revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear
report.
Sec. 121. No sole source contract with the District of
Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or
extended without opening that contract to the competitive
bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District
of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. Law 6-85;
D.C. Code, sec. 1-1183.3), except that the District of
Columbia government or any agency thereof may renew or extend
sole source contracts for which competition is not feasible
or practical: Provided, That the determination as to whether
to invoke the competitive bidding process has been made in
accordance with duly promulgated rules and procedures and
said determination has been reviewed and approved by the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority.
Sec. 122. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-
177), the term ``program, project, and activity'' shall be
synonymous with and refer specifically to each account
appropriating Federal funds in this Act, and any
sequestration order shall be applied to each of the accounts
rather than to the aggregate total of those accounts:
Provided, That sequestration orders shall not be applied to
any account that is specifically exempted from sequestration
by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
Sec. 123. In the event a sequestration order is issued
pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037: Public Law 99-177), after the
amounts appropriated to the District of Columbia for the
fiscal year involved have been paid to the District of
Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall pay to
the Secretary of the Treasury, within 15 days after receipt
of a request therefor from the Secretary of the Treasury,
such amounts as are sequestered by the order: Provided, That
the sequestration percentage specified in the order shall be
applied proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation
accounts in this Act that are not specifically exempted from
sequestration by such Act.
Sec. 124. (a) An entity of the District of Columbia
government may accept and use a gift or donation during
fiscal year 2001 if--
(1) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift
or donation: Provided, That the Council of the District of
Columbia may accept and use gifts without prior approval by
the Mayor; and
(2) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its
authorized functions or duties.
(b) Each entity of the District of Columbia government
shall keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance
and use of any gift or donation under subsection (a) of this
section, and shall make such records available for audit and
public inspection.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``entity of
the District of Columbia government'' includes an independent
agency of the District of Columbia.
(d) This section shall not apply to the District of
Columbia Board of Education, which may, pursuant to the laws
and regulations of the District of Columbia, accept and use
gifts to the public schools without prior approval by the
Mayor.
Sec. 125. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act
may be used by the District
[[Page H7046]]
of Columbia to provide for salaries, expenses, or other costs
associated with the offices of United States Senator or
United States Representative under section 4(d) of the
District of Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention
Initiatives of 1979 (D.C. Law 3-171; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
113(d)).
Sec. 126. (a) The University of the District of Columbia
shall submit to the Mayor, the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and the
Council of the District of Columbia no later than 15 calendar
days after the end of each quarter a report that sets forth--
(1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year
expenditure projections versus budget broken out on the basis
of control center, responsibility center, and object class,
and for all funds, non-appropriated funds, and capital
financing;
(2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and
the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center,
responsibility center, detailed object, and for all funding
sources;
(3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000
annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the
budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the
basis of control center and responsibility center, and
contract identifying codes used by the University of the
District of Columbia; payments made in the last quarter and
year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total
payments made for the contract and any modifications,
extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each
contract in the last month;
(4) all reprogramming requests and reports that have been
made by the University of the District of Columbia within the
last quarter in compliance with applicable law; and
(5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational
structure of the University of the District of Columbia,
displaying previous and current control centers and
responsibility centers, the names of the organizational
entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member
supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the
structural change.
(b) The Mayor, the Authority, and the Council shall provide
the Congress by February 1, 2001, a summary, analysis, and
recommendations on the information provided in the quarterly
reports.
Sec. 127. (a) Nothing in the Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) may be
construed to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency from negotiating and entering into
cooperative agreements and grants authorized by law which
affect real property of the Federal Government in the
District of Columbia if the principal purpose of the
cooperative agreement or grant is to provide comparable
benefits for Federal and non-Federal properties in the
District of Columbia.
(b) Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to fiscal year
2001 and each succeeding fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 128. (a) Conditions for Granting Preference in Use of
Surplus School Properties to Public Charter Schools.--
(1) In general.--Section 2209(b)(1)(A) of the District of
Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (sec. 31-2853.19(b)(1)(A),
D.C. Code) is amended--
(A) by striking ``purchase or lease'' and inserting
``purchase, lease-purchase, or lease''; and
(B) by striking ``, provided that'' and all that follows
and inserting a period.
(2) Property subject to preference.--Section
2209(b)(1)(B)(iii) of such Act (sec. 31-
2853.19(b)(1)(B)(iii), D.C. Code) is amended to read as
follows:
``(iii) with respect to which the Authority or the Board of
Education has transferred jurisdiction to the Mayor at any
time prior or subsequent to the date of the enactment of this
title.''.
(b) Procedures for Disposition of Property.--Section
2209(b)(1) of such Act (sec. 31-2853.19(b)(1), D.C. Code) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(C) Disposition to public charter schools.--
``(i) In general.--Public charter schools shall have the
priority right to lease, lease-purchase, or purchase any
vacant facility or property described in subparagraph (B),
and any facility or property described in subparagraph (B)
which is leased or occupied as of the date of the enactment
of this subparagraph by an entity other than a public charter
school.
``(ii) Appraisal of property.--When a public charter school
notifies the Mayor of its intention to exercise its rights
under clause (i), the Mayor shall obtain within 90 days an
independent fair market appraisal of the facility or property
based on its current permitted use, and shall transmit a copy
of the appraisal to the public charter school. The public
charter school shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of
the appraisal to enter into a contract for the purchase,
lease-purchase, or lease of such facility or property, which
time may be extended by mutual agreement. Upon execution of
the contract, the public charter school shall have 180 days
to complete the acquisition of the property.
``(iii) Prices.--
``(I) Purchase.--The purchase price of a facility or
property described in this clause and in subparagraph (B)
shall be the fair market value of the facility or property,
less a 25 percent discount.
``(II) Lease.--The lease price of a facility or property
described in this clause and in subparagraph (B) shall be the
price charged by the District of Columbia to other nonprofit
organizations leasing public facilities or, if there is no
nonprofit rate, fair market value less a 25 percent discount.
The price shall be reduced to take into account the value of
any improvement to the public school facility or property
which is preapproved by the Mayor.
``(III) Lease-purchase.--A lease-purchase price of a
facility or property described in this clause and in
subparagraph (B) shall reflect a 25 percent discount from
fair market value, in a manner consistent with subclauses (I)
and (II).
``(iv) Quarterly report.--On January 1, April 1, July 1,
and October 1 of each calendar year, the Mayor shall publish
a report describing the status of each facility or property
described in subparagraph (B), including the date of
expiration of the lease term or right of occupancy, if any,
and the date, if any, each facility or property was or will
be put out for bid or transferred to a District of Columbia
agency, if any. The Mayor shall deliver such report to each
eligible chartering authority and shall publish it in the
District of Columbia register.
``(D) Disposition of facilities or properties after
exclusive period.--
``(i) In general.--The Mayor may put out for bid to the
public or transfer to a District of Columbia agency for the
use of such agency any facility or property described in this
subparagraph (B) which was not acquired by a public charter
school pursuant to subparagraph (C).
``(ii) Notice.--At least 90 days prior to putting any such
facility property out for bid or transferring it to a
District of Columbia agency, the Mayor shall notify each
eligible chartering authority in writing of his intention to
do so.
``(iii) Public charter school right to acquire before bid
or transfer.--Prior to the expiration of the 90-day notice
period described in clause (ii), a public charter school may
purchase, lease-purchase, or lease any facility or property
described in the notice under the terms described in clause
(iii) of subparagraph (C).
``(iv) Public charter school right to match bid.--With
regard to any facility or property offered for bid under this
subparagraph, the Mayor shall notify each eligible chartering
authority in writing within 5 days of the amount of the
highest acceptable bid. A public charter school may purchase,
lease-purchase, or lease such facility or property by
submitting a bid for the facility or property within 30
business days of receipt by each eligible chartering
authority of such notice. The cost of acquisition shall be as
described in clause (iii) of subparagraph (C).
``(v) Facilities or properties not put out for bid or
transferred.--A public charter school shall have the right to
purchase, lease-purchase, or lease, under the terms described
in clause (iii) of subparagraph (C), any facility or property
described in this paragraph that has not been put out for bid
or transferred to a District of Columbia agency by the Mayor
as provided for in this subparagraph.''.
(c) Preferences for Use of Current Property.--Section
2209(b)(2) of such Act (sec. 31-2853.19(b)(2), D.C. Code) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``purposes,'' and
inserting ``purposes directly related to its mission,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Preference described.--A public charter school shall
have first priority to lease, or otherwise contract for the
use of, any property described in subparagraph (B), at a rate
which does not exceed the rate charged a private nonprofit
entity for the use of a comparable property of the District
of Columbia public schools and which is reduced to take into
account the value of repairs or improvements made to the
facility or property by the public charter school.''.
(d) Exercise of Preferences by Other Entities.--Section
2209(b) of such Act (sec. 31-2853.19(b), D.C. Code) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Exercise of preference by certain other entities.--A
public charter school may delegate to a nonprofit, tax-exempt
organization in the District of Columbia the public charter
school's authority under this subsection.''.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 printed in the Congressional Record
offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
Strike sections 128 and 129 (and redesignate the succeeding
provisions accordingly).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) reserves a
point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) each
will control 5 minutes.
[[Page H7047]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the reason for doing this is we want to strike sections
128 and 129. The reason is that the District of Columbia is already on
the leading edge of the charter school movement throughout the country.
It is reforming its schools. In fact, it had an enrollment increase of
over 100 percent in the last year. Mayor Williams has seen to it that
the funding has increased by 300 percent to $77 million for charter
schools. That is good. That is what we want.
The Center for Washington Area Studies reported that D.C. charter
schools funding is among the most generous in the entire Nation in
terms of per-pupil expenditures. Unfortunately, these two provisions
could potentially jeopardize both that funding and the positive impact
which charter schools are having because it substantially reduces the
authority of local elected officials to determine the best use of
surplus school properties. It was done without consultation with the
Mayor or the school board or local elected officials.
So passage of these provisions is going to have a very serious effect
potentially upon homeless shelters, alternative education programs, the
Metropolitan Police Department, because these organizations, these
services are using surplus school properties.
These amendments say any charter school can go in and buy these
surplus school properties at 25 percent less than market even if they
are occupied. So potentially, one could displace the Commission on
Mental Health which operates a clinic at the Addison School, the Center
of Hope which leases Keene School, the Commission on Mental Health
which operates a children's program at the Reno School, the homeless
shelters at Madison School in Old Emery, the Police Department at
Petworth School.
I have got all kinds of examples here that could be displaced if any
charter school wants to come in and buy these surplus properties. They
can get it at 25 percent discount on all leases, sales and lease sales.
That means that the District of Columbia could lose $48 million from
the market value of this property. That is why the Mayor does not want
this.
This does not make sense. We would not want it if we were mayor. Why
would one lose that kind of money? We want to cooperate with charter
schools. We are strongly in favor of charter schools. D.C. is doing a
good job on charter schools. But this could really impede its efforts.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. That is exactly even, Mr. Chairman, and that
is what we want.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
{time} 1545
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I am a strong supporter of charter schools. This city has more
charter schools than any other jurisdiction in the United States. It
has been very generous with them.
Some residents went around our mayor and came up here to get this
amendment. I believe Mr. Peabody and Mr. Patten. There may be others.
If they were having trouble with the District, they have now had a
meeting with the District, they should have come to me or someone else.
Instead, what we get is a heavy-handed amendment that this House could
never, never, at least if it is a market-driven House, could never
approve. It slaps a huge compelled nonmarket-driven reduction on
property without knowing where the property is or what it is worth and
otherwise directs how properties should be disposed of. We do not do
that in a free economy. We do not do that in a market-driven economy.
The District has very scarce resources precisely because the Federal
Government takes up all of the space. Mayor Williams wrote to the
chairman saying, ``I am opposed to language concerning disposition of
surplus school property that would hamper the District Government's
ability to utilize its assets to reform our schools.''
This amendment is big-time overkill to tell the City how much it
should sell property for, how much it should reduce property to. Some
of it should be reduced to nothing; some of it should be reduced very
little. None of us in this body knows.
I arranged a meeting when I learned of this problem. I understand
that the City itself is going to deal with this and it should have it
dealt with within a month. I hope that by the time we get to
conference, the chairman will see fit to withdraw this, because I think
the matter shall have already been taken care of.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, as
well as reserving a point of order.
What is happening with charter schools in the District of Columbia is
that parents and students are flocking to them because they offer an
escape from the bureaucracy that governs the District's schools, that
assumes the cash, that has one of the highest per-pupil funding rates
in the country; but where the cash ends up in a bureaucracy not helping
out in the classroom with Johnny and Suzy.
Charter schools have now attracted over 10 percent of the student
enrollment, moving toward 15 percent of the students in the public
schools in the District of Columbia. Charter schools are themselves
public schools but they do not get stuck with the same bureaucracy, and
parents want these charter schools. They are sending their kids to
them. But what is happening, Mr. Chairman, is that the bureaucracy is
striking back. Not openly, not out in the open, but using their weapon
of choice, red tape, and strangling the charter schools when they try
to do something. Charter schools are supposed to have the same access
to public resources as public schools do.
We did not create this, Mr. Chairman, but the control board had an
order that they issued in 1998 saying that if a charter school wanted
to match the bid price of a vacant school, and they have tons of them
in the District of Columbia, if a charter school wanted to match the
bid price, because they were also part of the public school system,
that if the price was a million dollars or less, they would get a 25
percent discount; if the price was over a million dollars, it would be
15 percent. That is where this language providing discounts comes from.
It is the standard the control board approved.
But guess what? Let me tell my colleagues a couple of things. Charter
schools found when they tried to make the leases, the process was being
dragged out. Let me tell my colleagues the story of the Franklin
School. The Franklin School had bids solicited for this vacant property
in February of 1998. There was an appraisal made so the taxpayer would
be protected. The appraisal was $4.1 million, and the successful bidder
was a charter school.
But then the emergency board of education trustees said, well, we
want to oppose this, and the control board rejected the bid. Why? Well,
the control board said they found out there was an assessment and the
District claimed the building is worth more than the $4 million, that
it is worth $15 million. And they hung on to that claim for months and
months as a reason, until somebody finally went back to the District
and checked the records, and the District had changed its own
assessment, but no one bothered to ask the District about it. The
District had agreed. They had changed it back in June of 1999 that the
assessed value was $4.2 million, right in line with the appraisal of
$4.1 million.
Despite the successful bid of the charter school, which is now, gosh,
Mr. Chairman, it is a year and a half old now, the D.C. schools and
their bureaucracy are dragging their feet and refusing to let the
building be used for a charter school. They just drag it out. Never any
overt actions; just we are waiting on this, we are waiting on that. Mr.
Chairman, we have to cut through the red tape sometime.
Now, I want to work with the gentlewoman from the District; I want to
work with the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member; and I want
to work with the District people and
[[Page H7048]]
the school people. I just want to make sure that they want to work with
the charter schools. The charter schools are public schools. They have
the same rights, because they represent and teach the same kids, the
same source of kids, and we have to stop the bureaucracy from trying to
strangle them.
The general provisions in the bill just put in common sense
requirements to make sure they get equal treatment. We could delve into
the details, but as I said, they could change as we work through this
process. We want to protect the kids, whether they attend a regular
public school or a charter school. They need protection. They need a
good solid education so that they can have a future of hope and growth
and opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, we certainly oppose the amendment that tries to take
out these efforts at reform, but we do want to continue to work with
everyone involved to make these provisions the best they can be.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time to sum up here.
Mr. Chairman, I do not object if the intent is simply to help the
charter school movement. The mayor wants to do that. I think most
people in D.C. want to have an alternative school system.
The problem is this amendment could potentially take $48 million out
of the public school system. It could displace a number of very
important organizations; the Commission on Mental Health; the D.C.
Police Department is using Petworth School. Homeless shelters. So I do
not think it was fully thought out.
The problem is that it was done without consultation with the mayor,
D. C. Council, and the school board. That is why the amendment really
should be struck. I understand the point of order, but I also know we
are doing the right thing if we were to strike it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate the gentleman's concern, Mr. Chairman. I want to assure
him this is not about displacing anyone, and certainly I do not believe
the amendment does what the gentleman claims, but I understand the bona
fide concern to make sure that it does not.
We have been working both directly and indirectly with the mayor's
office and other entities involved and will continue to do so.
Point of Order
Mr. ISTOOK. 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 any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook), the point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 129. (a) Modification of Contracting Requirements.--
(1) Contracts subject to notice requirements.--Section
2204(c)(1)(A) of the District of Columbia School Reform Act
(sec. 31-2853.14(c)(1)(A), D.C. Code) is amended to read as
follows:
``(A) Notice requirement for procurement contracts.--
``(i) In general.--Except in the case of an emergency (as
determined by the eligible chartering authority of a public
charter school), with respect to any procurement contract
proposed to be awarded by the public charter school and
having a value equal to or exceeding $25,000, the school
shall publish a notice of a request for proposals in the
District of Columbia Register and newspapers of general
circulation not less than 7 days prior to the award of the
contract.
``(ii) Exception for certain contracts.--The notice
requirement of clause (i) shall not apply with respect to any
contract for the lease or purchase of real property by a
public charter school, any employment contract for a staff
member of a public charter school, or any management contract
entered into by a public charter school and the management
company designated in its charter or its petition for a
revised charter.''.
(2) Submission of contracts to eligible chartering
authority.--Section 2204(c)(1)(B) of such Act (sec. 31-
2853.14(c)(1)(B), D.C. Code) is amended--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``authority'' and inserting
``eligible chartering authority'';
(B) in clause (i), by striking ``Authority'' and inserting
``eligible chartering authority''; and
(C) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
``(ii) Effective date of contract.--A contract described in
subparagraph (A) shall become effective on the date that is
10 days after the date the school makes the submission under
clause (i) with respect to the contract, or the effective
date specified in the contract, whichever is later.''.
(b) Clarification of Application of School Reform Act.--
(1) Waiver of duplicate and conflicting provisions.--
Section 2210 of such Act (sec. 31-2853.20, D.C. Code) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Waiver of Application of Duplicate and Conflicting
Provisions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
except as otherwise provided in this title, no provision of
any law regarding the establishment, administration, or
operation of public charter schools in the District of
Columbia shall apply with respect to a public charter school
or an eligible chartering authority to the extent that the
provision duplicates or is inconsistent with any provision of
this title.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995.
(c) Licensing Requirements for Preschool or Prekindergarten
Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 2204(c) of such Act (sec. 31-
2853.14(c), D.C. Code) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(18) Licensing as child development center.--A public
charter school which offers a preschool or prekindergarten
program shall be subject to the same child care licensing
requirements (if any) which apply to a District of Columbia
public school which offers such a program.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 2202 of such Act
(sec. 31-2853.12, D.C. Code) is amended by striking clause
(17).
(B) Section 2203(h)(2) of such Act (sec. 31-2853.13(h)(2),
D.C. Code) is amended by striking ``(17),''.
(d) Section 2403 of the District of Columbia School Reform
Act of 1995 (sec. 31-2853.43, D.C. Code) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Assignment of Payments.--A public charter school may
assign any payments made to the school under this section to
a financial institution for use as collateral to secure a
loan or for the repayment of a loan.''.
(e) Section 2210 of the District of Columbia School Reform
Act of 1995 (sec. 31-2853.20, D.C. Code), as amended by
subsection (b), is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) Participation in GSA Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this
Act or any other provision of law, a public charter school
may acquire goods and services through the General Services
Administration and may participate in programs of the
Administration in the same manner and to the same extent as
any entity of the District of Columbia government.
``(2) Participation by certain organizations.--A public
charter school may delegate to a nonprofit, tax-exempt
organization in the District of Columbia the public charter
school's authority under paragraph (1).''.
Sec. 130. None of the funds appropriated under this Act
shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of
the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to
term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape
or incest.
Sec. 131. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits
Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-
1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system
of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether
homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not
limited to registration for the purpose of extending
employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples
on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally
married couples.
Sec. 132. The Superintendent of the District of Columbia
Public Schools shall submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority, and the Council of the District of
Columbia no later than 15 calendar days after the end of each
quarter a report that sets forth--
(1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year
expenditure projections versus budget, broken out on the
basis of control center, responsibility center, agency
reporting code, and object class, and for all funds,
including capital financing;
(2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and
the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center,
responsibility center, detailed object, and agency reporting
code, and for all funding sources;
(3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000
annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the
budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the
basis of control center, responsibility center, and agency
reporting code; and contract identifying codes used by the
District of Columbia
[[Page H7049]]
Public Schools; payments made in the last quarter and year-
to-date, the total amount of the contract and total payments
made for the contract and any modifications, extensions,
renewals; and specific modifications made to each contract in
the last month;
(4) all reprogramming requests and reports that are
required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of
Education; and
(5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational
structure of the District of Columbia Public Schools,
displaying previous and current control centers and
responsibility centers, the names of the organizational
entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member
supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the
structural change.
Sec. 133. (a) In General.--The Superintendent of the
District of Columbia Public Schools and the University of the
District of Columbia shall annually compile an accurate and
verifiable report on the positions and employees in the
public school system and the university, respectively. The
annual report shall set forth--
(1) the number of validated schedule A positions in the
District of Columbia public schools and the University of the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 2001,
and thereafter on full-time equivalent basis, including a
compilation of all positions by control center,
responsibility center, funding source, position type,
position title, pay plan, grade, and annual salary; and
(2) a compilation of all employees in the District of
Columbia public schools and the University of the District of
Columbia as of the preceding December 31, verified as to its
accuracy in accordance with the functions that each employee
actually performs, by control center, responsibility center,
agency reporting code, program (including funding source),
activity, location for accounting purposes, job title, grade
and classification, annual salary, and position control
number.
(b) Submission.--The annual report required by subsection
(a) of this section shall be submitted to the Congress, the
Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the Consensus
Commission, and the Authority, not later than February 15 of
each year.
Sec. 134. (a) No later than November 1, 2000, or within 30
calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
which ever occurs later, and each succeeding year, the
Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools and
the University of the District of Columbia shall submit to
the appropriate congressional committees, the Mayor, the
District of Columbia Council, the Consensus Commission, and
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority, a revised appropriated funds
operating budget for the public school system and the
University of the District of Columbia for such fiscal year
that is in the total amount of the approved appropriation and
that realigns budgeted data for personal services and other-
than-personal services, respectively, with anticipated actual
expenditures.
(b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this
section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that
the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools
and the University of the District of Columbia submit to the
Mayor of the District of Columbia for inclusion in the
Mayor's budget submission to the Council of the District of
Columbia pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).
Sec. 135. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Authority, acting on behalf of the
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) in formulating the
DCPS budget, the Board of Trustees of the University of the
District of Columbia, the Board of Library Trustees, and the
Board of Governors of the University of the District of
Columbia School of Law shall vote on and approve the
respective annual or revised budgets for such entities before
submission to the Mayor of the District of Columbia for
inclusion in the Mayor's budget submission to the Council of
the District of Columbia in accordance with section 442 of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198;
D.C. Code, sec. 47-301), or before submitting their
respective budgets directly to the Council.
Sec. 136. (a) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in
Ceiling Under ``Division of Expenses''.--
(1) In general.--The Mayor, in consultation with the Chief
Financial Officer, during a control year, as defined in
section 305(4) of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104-8; 109 Stat. 152), may accept, obligate, and expend
Federal, private, and other grants received by the District
government that are not reflected in the amounts appropriated
in this Act.
(2) Requirement of chief financial officer report and
authority approval.--No such Federal, private, or other grant
may be accepted, obligated, or expended pursuant to paragraph
(1) until--
(A) the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
submits to the Authority a report setting forth detailed
information regarding such grant; and
(B) the Authority has reviewed and approved the acceptance,
obligation, and expenditure of such grant in accordance with
review and approval procedures consistent with the provisions
of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995.
(3) Prohibition on spending in anticipation of approval or
receipt.--No amount may be obligated or expended from the
general fund or other funds of the District government in
anticipation of the approval or receipt of a grant under
paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection or in anticipation of the
approval or receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not
subject to such paragraph.
(4) Quarterly reports.--The Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall prepare a quarterly report setting
forth detailed information regarding all Federal, private,
and other grants subject to this subsection. Each such report
shall be submitted to the Council of the District of
Columbia, and to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 15
days after the end of the quarter covered by the report.
(b) Report on Expenditures by Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority.--Not later than 20 calendar
days after the end of each fiscal quarter starting October 1,
2000, the Authority shall submit a report to the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House, and
the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate providing
an itemized accounting of all non-appropriated funds
obligated or expended by the Authority for the quarter. The
report shall include information on the date, amount,
purpose, and vendor name, and a description of the services
or goods provided with respect to the expenditures of such
funds.
Sec. 137. If a department or agency of the government of
the District of Columbia is under the administration of a
court-appointed receiver or other court-appointed official
during fiscal year 2001 or any succeeding fiscal year, the
receiver or official shall prepare and submit to the Mayor,
for inclusion in the annual budget of the District of
Columbia for the year, annual estimates of the expenditures
and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and
operation of the department or agency. All such estimates
shall be forwarded by the Mayor to the Council, for its
action pursuant to sections 446 and 603(c) of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act, without revision but subject to the
Mayor's recommendations. Notwithstanding any provision of the
District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat. 774; Public Law
93-198) the Council may comment or make recommendations
concerning such annual estimates but shall have no authority
under such Act to revise such estimates.
Sec. 138. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
rule, or regulation, an employee of the District of Columbia
public schools shall be--
(1) classified as an Educational Service employee;
(2) placed under the personnel authority of the Board of
Education; and
(3) subject to all Board of Education rules.
(b) School-based personnel shall constitute a separate
competitive area from nonschool-based personnel who shall not
compete with school-based personnel for retention purposes.
Sec. 139. (a) Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, none of the
funds made available by this Act or by any other Act may be
used to provide any officer or employee of the District of
Columbia with an official vehicle unless the officer or
employee uses the vehicle only in the performance of the
officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes of this
paragraph, the term ``official duties'' does not include
travel between the officer's or employee's residence and
workplace (except (1) in the case of an officer or employee
of the Metropolitan Police Department who resides in the
District of Columbia or is otherwise designated by the Chief
of the Department; (2) at the discretion of the Fire Chief,
an officer or employee of the District of Columbia Fire and
Emergency Medical Services Department who resides in the
District of Columbia and is on call 24 hours a day; (3) the
Mayor of the District of Columbia; and (4) the Chairman of
the Council of the District of Columbia).
(b) Inventory of Vehicles.--The Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia shall submit, by November 15, 2000,
an inventory, as of September 30, 2000, of all vehicles
owned, leased or operated by the District of Columbia
government. The inventory shall include, but not be limited
to, the department to which the vehicle is assigned; the year
and make of the vehicle; the acquisition date and cost; the
general condition of the vehicle; annual operating and
maintenance costs; current mileage; and whether the vehicle
is allowed to be taken home by a District officer or employee
and if so, the officer or employee's title and resident
location.
Sec. 140. (a) Source of Payment for Employees Detailed
Within Government.--For purposes of determining the amount of
funds expended by any entity within the District of Columbia
government during fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal
year, any expenditures of the District government
attributable to any officer or employee of the District
government who provides services which are within the
authority and jurisdiction of the entity (including any
portion of the compensation paid to the officer or employee
attributable to the time spent in providing such services)
shall be treated as expenditures made from the entity's
budget, without regard to whether the officer or employee is
assigned to the entity or otherwise treated as an officer or
employee of the entity.
[[Page H7050]]
(b) Modification of Reduction in Force Procedures.--The
District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel
Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), is further
amended in section 2408(a) by striking ``2000'' and
inserting, ``2001''; in subsection (b), by striking ``2000''
and inserting ``2001''; in subsection (i), by striking
``2000'' and inserting, ``2001''; and in subsection (k), by
striking ``2000'' and inserting, ``2001''.
(c) No officer or employee of the District of Columbia
government (including any independent agency of the District
but excluding the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, the
Metropolitan Police Department, and the Office of the Chief
Technology Officer) may enter into an agreement in excess of
$2,500 for the procurement of goods or services on behalf of
any entity of the District government until the officer or
employee has conducted an analysis of how the procurement of
the goods and services involved under the applicable
regulations and procedures of the District government would
differ from the procurement of the goods and services
involved under the Federal supply schedule and other
applicable regulations and procedures of the General Services
Administration, including an analysis of any differences in
the costs to be incurred and the time required to obtain the
goods or services.
Sec. 141. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
later than 120 days after the date that a District of
Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) student is referred for
evaluation or assessment--
(1) the District of Columbia Board of Education or its
successor, and DCPS shall assess or evaluate a student who
may have a disability and who may require special education
services; and
(2) if a student is classified as having a disability, as
defined in section 101(a)(1) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (84 Stat. 175; 20 U.S.C.
1401(a)(1)) or in section 7(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (87 Stat. 359; 29 U.S.C. 706(8)), the Board and DCPS
shall place that student in an appropriate program of special
education services.
Sec. 142. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of
the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an
entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds
the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a-10c).
(b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
(1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In
the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided using
funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
(2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing
financial assistance using funds made available in this Act,
the head of each agency of the Federal or District of
Columbia government shall provide to each recipient of the
assistance a notice describing the statement made in
paragraph (1) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 143. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the
District of Columbia government (including the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority) for fiscal year 2000 unless--
(1) the audit is conducted by the Inspector General of the
District of Columbia pursuant to section 208(a)(4) of the
District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C.
Code, sec. 1-1182.8(a)(4)); and
(2) the audit includes a comparison of audited actual year-
end results with the revenues submitted in the budget
document for such year and the appropriations enacted into
law for such year.
Sec. 144. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
authorize any office, agency or entity to expend funds for
programs or functions for which a reorganization plan is
required but has not been approved by the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority. Appropriations made by this Act for such programs
or functions are conditioned only on the approval by the
Authority of the required reorganization plans.
Sec. 145. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule,
or regulation, the evaluation process and instruments for
evaluating District of Columbia Public School employees shall
be a non-negotiable item for collective bargaining purposes.
Sec. 146. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or any
other officer or entity of the District government to provide
assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks
to require Congress to provide for voting representation in
Congress for the District of Columbia.
Sec. 147. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to transfer or confine inmates classified above the
medium security level, as defined by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons classification instrument, to the Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center located in Youngstown, Ohio.
Sec. 148. (a) Section 202(j) of the District of Columbia
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of
1995 (sec. 47-392.2(j), DC Code), as amended by section
148(a) of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000,
is amended to read as follows:
``(j) Reserve.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the
financial plan or budget submitted pursuant to this Act shall
contain $150,000,000, to remain available until expended, for
a reserve to be established by the Mayor, Council of the
District of Columbia, Chief Financial Officer for the
District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.
``(2) Conditions on use.--The reserve funds--
``(A) shall only be expended according to criteria
established by the Chief Financial Officer and approved by
the Mayor, Council of the District of Columbia, and District
of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority;
``(B) shall not be used to fund the agencies of the
District of Columbia government under court ordered
receivership; and
``(C) shall not be used to fund shortfalls in the projected
reductions budgeted in the budget proposed by the District of
Columbia government for general supply schedule savings,
management reform savings, and cafeteria plan savings.
``(3) Report requirement.--The Authority shall notify the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives in writing 30 days in advance of any
expenditure of the reserve funds.
``(4) Replenishment.--Any amount of the reserve funds which
is expended in one fiscal year shall be replenished in the
reserve funds from the following fiscal year appropriations
to maintain the $150,000,000 balance.''.
(b) Section 202(k) of such Act (sec. 47-392.2(k), DC Code),
as amended by section 148(b) of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2000, is amended to read as follows:
``(k) Positive Fund Balance.--
``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia shall maintain
at the end of a fiscal year an annual positive fund balance
in the general fund of not less than 4 percent of the
projected general fund expenditures for the following fiscal
year.
``(2) Excess funds.--Of funds remaining in excess of the
amounts required by paragraph (1)--
``(A) not more than 50 percent may be used for authorized
non-recurring expenses; and
``(B) not less than 50 percent shall be used to reduce the
debt of the District of Columbia.''.
(c) The amendments made by this section shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2000.
Sec. 149. Subsection 3(e) of Public Law 104-21 (D.C. Code
sec. 7-134.2(e)) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Inspector General Audit.--Not later than February 1,
2001, and each February 1, thereafter, the Inspector General
of the District of Columbia shall audit the financial
statements of the District of Columbia Highway Trust Fund for
the preceding fiscal year and shall submit to Congress a
report on the results of such audit. Not later than May 31,
2001, and each May 31, thereafter, the Inspector General
shall examine the statements forecasting the conditions and
operations of the Trust Fund for the next five fiscal years
commencing on the previous October 1 and shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of such examination.''.
Sec. 150. None of the Federal funds contained in this Act
may be used for any program of distributing sterile needles
or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Souder
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 106-790 offered by
Mr. Souder:
In section 150, strike ``Federal''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of any funds
appropriated by this bill to finance needle exchange programs in the
District of Columbia.
The reasoning is simple: Needle exchange programs sanction and
facilitate the use of the same illegal drugs we are spending billions
of dollars to
[[Page H7051]]
keep off our streets. They send the wrong message, and it simply does
not work.
This is consistent with the needle exchange ban we passed and that
was enacted in the bill last year, and I urge my colleagues to maintain
the ban in this bill. This amendment restores the exact same language
as the amendment that passed last year with 240 votes and was signed by
the President.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), whose amendment passed in full
committee and whose amendment would be negated by this amendment.
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
This amendment clearly illustrates the philosophy of this bill, and
that is ``do as I say.'' Let me read to my colleagues the people that
support the needle exchange program.
{time} 1600
The American Medical Association, the American Public Health
Association, the United States Conference of Mayors.
Let me read to my colleagues what, on March of this year, the Surgeon
General said. He said that ``after reviewing all of the research to
date, the senior scientists of the Department and I have unanimously
agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe
exchange programs as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy
are, in effect, public health intervention that reduces the
transmission of HIV and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs.''
Clearly, everyone can see that some people are opposed to it
notwithstanding the facts, and that is the reason this amendment is
being offered.
The American Medical Association says that it has an impact. The
Surgeon General has studied this. It is a simple amendment. It is a
matter of simple philosophy. They do not like it.
What funds are they using? Their own funds. Is this some novel idea?
Thirty States have these programs where they use State and local funds,
133 cities. But we come to the floor because we personally do not like
it and say to them that they cannot use their own funds.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) for yielding me the time and commend him for his effort.
I strongly support his amendment. This is something that would make
it absolutely clear that the taxpayers' dollars, no matter what
taxpayers' dollars those might be, cannot be used to provide needles to
drug addicts to participate in an illegal activity.
We should not tell our children do not do drugs on the one hand while
giving them free needles to shoot up with on the other. We need a
national drug control policy which emphasizes education, interdiction,
prevention and treatment, not subsidies for addicts.
Providing free hypodermic needles to addicts so that they can
continue to inject illegal drugs sends a terrible message to our
children that Congress has given up on the fight to stop illegal drug
use and that the Federal Government implicitly condones this illegal
activity.
As lawmakers, we have a responsibility to rise up and fight against
the use and spread of drugs everywhere we can. We should start by
making it harder, not easier, to practice this deadly habit.
This amendment will reaffirm the Federal Government's commitment to
the war on drugs by prohibiting Federal and District funds from being
used to conduct needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia.
These programs are harmful to communities and undermine our Nation's
drug control efforts.
Drug abuse continues to ravage our communities, our schools, and our
children. Heroin use is again on the rise. Thousands of children will
inject hard-core drugs like heroin and cocaine. The first year, many
will die.
Oppose the effort to have needle exchanges. Support the Souder
amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment to prohibit the District of Columbia from using any funds,
Federal or local, for a needle exchange program.
The positive effects of needle exchange are proven. In communities
across the country, needle exchange programs have been established and
are contributing to the reduction of HIV transmission among IV drug
users.
In my hometown of Madison, Wisconsin, as well as in other Wisconsin
communities, outreach workers and volunteers go into the community and
provide drug users with risk-reduction education and referrals to drug
counseling treatment and other medical services.
Yet Congress continues to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence
showing that needle exchange is an effective HIV prevention tool.
I want to end with a personal note on this issue. When outreach
workers in my community and in other Wisconsin communities go out to
drug abusers and say, I care about whether you live or die, it brings
them into treatment and takes them off their dependency.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica), the distinguished chairman who chairs the
Subcommittee on Criminal, Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of
the Committee on Government Reform.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I do not ask my colleagues to support this
amendment. I implore them to support this amendment.
If we want to listen to people who are making statements about needle
exchange programs, take the word of our drug czar, this
administration's drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, who said, ``by
handing out needles, we encourage drug use. Such a message would be
inconsistent with the tenure of our national youth-oriented antidrug
campaign.''
That is our drug czar that made that statement.
If we want to look at examples where they have instituted drug and
needle exchange programs and see the results, a 1997 Vancouver study
reported that their needle exchange program started in 1988 with HIV
prevalence in drug addicts at only 1 to 2 percent and now it is 23
percent.
The study found that 40 percent of the HIV-positive addicts had lent
their used syringes in the previous 6 months.
Additionally, the study found that 39 percent of the HIV-negative
addicts had borrowed a used syringe in the previous 6 months.
If we want to see what a liberal program will do to a city, just look
to the sister city to the north, Baltimore. With a liberal mayor who
adopted a liberal policy on needle exchange, everyone could do it.
The murder rate is a national disgrace. The addicts, and this
information was given to our subcommittee by DEA, in 1996 were at
39,000.
Recently, a councilwoman, Rickie Specter, said that the statistics
are not one in 10 of the city population, according to a Time Magazine
report in September of 1999, but, and these are her words, ``it is more
like one in eight.''
So if we want to ruin this city, adopt the policy in the bill and
defeat the amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, drug czar General McCaffrey has never opposed a
prohibition on local jurisdiction's efforts to implement a needle
exchange program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the honorable gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an example of the
misguided moralism that is so replete in this District of Columbia
appropriations bill.
What is at issue here is public health. It has been clearly
demonstrated that
[[Page H7052]]
by providing sterile syringes and needles to drug addicts, we cut back
dramatically on the incidence of HIV and AIDS.
Fifty percent of the AIDS-positive people in the District of Columbia
contracted that condition by using contaminated needles. Seventy-five
percent of the women in the District of Columbia who are HIV-positive
got that way as a result of contaminated needles. Seventy-five percent
of the children who are HIV-positive in the District of Columbia got
that way as a result of contaminated needles.
This is a public health issue. My colleagues ought to poke their
noses out of it. Let the District run their own business. They are
condemning people to contract HIV and AIDS by proposing this amendment
if it passes. More people will become HIV-positive and more people will
die of AIDS as a result of this amendment if it passes. It should be
defeated.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear. There are only two
scientific long-term studies, one in Vancouver and one in Montreal. In
Montreal, the number that contracted the AIDS virus more than doubled;
in Vancouver, it was higher among participants in the program.
Furthermore, one prominent advocate of the needle exchange program
said most needle exchange programs provide a valuable service to users.
They serve as sites of informal and increasingly formal organizing and
coming together. A user might be able to do the networking needed to
find good drugs in the half an hour he spends at the street-based
needle exchange site, networking that might otherwise have taken half a
day.
This does not help HIV people. This does not help drug addicts. The
merciful thing to do, the caring thing to do is to help people get off
of their addiction, not to fuel their habit by giving them free needles
paid for by the taxpayers either directly or indirectly.
This idea that the money is not fungible is laughable. Either
directly or indirectly, it should not come from the taxpayers of
Indiana or anywhere else to fuel people's drug habits that also can
lead them to the HIV virus.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of any of the funds
appropriated by this bill to finance needle exchange programs in the
District of Columbia. The reasoning is simple: needle exchange programs
sanction and facilitate the use of the same illegal drugs we are
spending billions of dollars to keep off our streets, send the wrong
message, and simply don't work. It is consistent with the needle
exchange ban we passed and that was enacted in the bill last year, and
I urge my colleagues to maintain the ban in this bill. This amendment
restores the exact language that passed last year with 240 votes and
was signed by the President.
needle exchange promotes drug use
Our experience with the needle exchange programs so far has shown us
that needle exchange programs can become havens not only for drug use,
but also magnets for drug dealers and networking sites for addicts to
learn where to find more drugs. For example, Donald Grovers, who is a
prominent advocate of needle exchange programs, has said:
Most needle exchange programs provide a valuable service to
users. . . . They serve as sites of informal (and
increasingly formal) organizing and coming together. A user
might be able to do the networking needed to find good drugs
in the half an hour he spends at the street-based needle
exchange site--networking that might otherwise have taken
half a day.
It's also a basic economic law that sellers go where their customers
are, and for a drug dealer there can be few targets of opportunity
riper than a needle exchange location. It is almost literally bringing
sheep to the wolf. The New York Times reported in 1997 that:
When a storefront is handing out 20,000 syringes a week,
suppliers are not far away. East Villagers who have been
trying to rebuild a neighborhood devastated by drugs during
the 1980s complain that the needle exchange has brought more
dealers back to the streets and more addicts into the halls
of the public housing projects at the corner.
James Curtis, a Columbia University Professor, observed in a New York
Times Op Ed that tenant groups around one of New York's largest needle
exchange programs told him that the center had become a magnet for
dealers, and that used needles, syringes and crack vials litter their
sidewalks. The police do nothing.
Needle exchange sites have become, for all practical purposes, safe
havens for drug users to escape law enforcement. The office of the DC
Police Chief has previously said that its policy is to ``look the other
way'' when drug addicts approach the Whitman-Walker clinic's mobile van
unit to receive needles, and other programs are designated ``police-
free zones.'' The Office of National Drug Control Policy concluded that
the highest rates of property crime in Vancouver were within two blocks
of the needle exchange.
needle exchange programs send the wrong message
Mr. Chairman, we have already appropriated billions of dollars for
next year to keep drugs off our streets through drug interdiction and
law enforcement, including aid to the states and the District of
Columbia. We have also appropriated substantial sums to help those who
are addicted to drugs get off and stay off through prevention and
treatment efforts, also including aid to the states and the District of
Columbia. It makes no sense whatsoever to turn around in this bill and
appropriate more funds to directly counter those efforts by passing out
free needles to addicts, or to support efforts by the District of
Columbia (or any state for that matter) to counter the goals of federal
policy in these areas.
Finally, General McCaffrey also pointed out that:
Needle exchange programs are almost exclusively located in
disadvantaged, predominantly minority, low income
neighborhoods. . . . These programs are magnets for all
social ills--pulling in crime, violence, addicts,
prostitution, dealers, and gangs and driving out hope and
opportunity. The overwhelming likelihood is that the burdens
of any expansion in needle exchange programs will continue to
fall upon those already struggling to get by.
Just yesterday, we passed the Community Renewal bill, one of the most
hopeful and optimistic pieces of legislation we have considered this
Congress. Do we want to turn around today and go in the other
direction?
needle exchange programs don't work
Finally, even if we were to ignore all of that and adopt for the
purposes of argument the fundamental premises of needle exchange
advocates, the cold fact of the matter is that needle exchange programs
simply don't work.
Dr. Fred Payne, medical advisor to the Children's AIDS Fund, found
that ``the data from four studies . . . strongly indicate that needle
exchange is ineffective in reducing HIV transmission among study
participants,'' and concluded that the evidence on the whole indicated
that programs were ineffective.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final one minute to
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, for many of us, this has become an issue laden with
emotional content because of its life-or-death consequences so visible
where we live.
HIV-AIDS has become another burden of race in our country and in this
majority black and Hispanic city. Today, the disease is largely a black
and brown killer because of contaminated needles. The overwhelming
majority of new cases have been black and Hispanic for years now. HIV-
AIDS is now a racially based public health emergency.
What Congress does on needle exchange is heavily laden with racial
content. The Congress allows citizen localities everywhere else on
Earth to do what is safe and what works for them.
The Congress must not condemn women, men, and children who live in
the District to die because they live in the District. That is what we
do if we wipe out the District needle exchange program in the city.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to allow the
District to make its own decisions on how to best prevent new HIV
infection.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Souder amendment. This
amendment will prohibit the use of both federal and local funds for the
City's needle exchange program to prevent new HIV infections in
injection drug users and their partners.
The District of Columbia has one of the highest HIV infection rates
in the country. Intravenous drug use is the District's second highest
mode of transmission, accounting for over 37 percent of all new AIDS
cases. For
[[Page H7053]]
women, where the rate of infection is growing faster than among men, it
is the highest mode of transmission.
Scientific evidence supports the fact that needle exchange programs
reduce HIV infection and do not contribute to illegal drug use. The
American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the
American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
and the United States Conference of Mayors all have expressed their
support for needle exchange, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention
program. Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General, also expressed
support for clean needle exchange programs. These are his words,
``Having worked on the HIV/AIDS epidemic since its emergence in the
U.S., I . . . express my strong belief that local programs of clean
needle exchange can be an effective means of preventing the spread of
the disease without increasing the use of illicit drugs.''
Once again, we are engaged in heated debate over policies that are
best left in the hands of the scientific community. We should not be
politicizing public health decisions.
The District of Columbia has had a local needle exchange program in
place since 1997. By using its own funds the number of new HIV/AIDS
cases due to intravenous drug uses had fallen more than 65% through
1999. This represents the most significant decline in new AIDS cases,
across all transmission categories, over this time period.
Mr. Chairman, AIDS is the third leading cause of death in the
District. Without a needle exchange program, HIV will spread unchecked,
and more people will be at risk. Public health decisions should be made
by public health officials; science should dictate such decisions, not
politics. I urge my colleagues allow the District to make its own
decisions on how best to prevent new HIV infections. Vote ``no'' on
this amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the
Souder amendment and the bill for several reasons.
The bill ignores the fact that needle exchange does not increase drug
use. It ignores the fact that society would have fewer individuals
infected with HIV if they used clean needles. Needle exchange programs
make needles available on a replacement basis only, and refer
participants to drug counseling and treatment. Numerous studies
concluded that needle exchange programs have shown a reduction in risk
behaviors as high as 80 percent in injecting drug users, with estimates
of 30 percent or greater reduction of HIV.
Mr. Chairman, it has long been known that socioeconomic status
impacts not only an individual's access to and use of health care but
also the quality and benefits derived from health care. Impoverished
communities have higher numbers of homeless individuals. Homelessness,
in turn, increases risk for HIV due to associated high rates of
substance abuse and prostitution.
The Federal Office of Minority Health has determined that increased
economic inequality is the driving force behind the rising health
disparities among Americans. Today, racial and ethnic minorities
comprise approximately 27 percent of the U.S. population, but account
for more than 66 percent of the Nation's new AIDS cases.
Mr. Chairman, last year I said this amendment was politically driven,
rather than scientifically based and that still remains true. This bill
whips on the poorest of the poor. This bill puts at risk millions of
Americans who might be married or committed to someone who they may not
know is an intravenous drug user. More importantly, this bill puts
children at risk.
Mr. Chairman, in order to stop the spread of HIV and improve the
health care of those already infected, prevention and intervention
programs that are designed to address the specific needs of the
population affected must be supported. The D.C. ``clean'' needle
exchange program must be funded. I urge all members to vote against
this thoughtless amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 151. (a) Restrictions on Leases.--Upon the expiration
of the 60-day period that begins on the date of the enactment
of this Act, none of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to make rental payments under a lease for the use of
real property by the District of Columbia government
(including any independent agency of the District) unless the
lease and an abstract of the lease have been filed (by the
District of Columbia or any other party to the lease) with
the central office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic
Development, in an indexed registry available for public
inspection.
(b) Additional Restrictions on Current Leases.--
(1) In general.--Upon the expiration of the 60-day period
that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act, in the
case of a lease described in paragraph (3), none for the
funds contained in this Act may be used to make rental
payments under the lease unless the lease is included in
periodic reports submitted by the Mayor and Council of the
District of Columbia to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and Senate describing for each
such lease the following information:
(A) The location of the property involved, the name of the
owners of record according to the land records of the
District of Columbia, the name of the lessors according to
the lease, the rate of payment under the lease, the period of
time covered by the lease, and the conditions under which the
lease may be terminated.
(B) The extent to which the property is or is not occupied
by the District of Columbia government as of the end of the
reporting period involved.
(C) If the property is not occupied and utilized by the
District government as of the end of the reporting period
involved, a plan for occupying and utilizing the property
(including construction or renovation work) or a status
statement regarding any efforts by the District to terminate
or renegotiate the lease.
(2) Timing of reports.--The reports described in paragraph
(1) shall be submitted for each calendar quarter (beginning
with the quarter ending December 31, 2000) not later than 20
days after the end of the quarter involved, plus an initial
report submitted not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, which shall provide information as of
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Leases described.--A lease described in this paragraph
is a lease in effect as of the date of the enactment of this
Act for the use of real property by the District of Columbia
government (including any independent agency of the District)
which is not being occupied by the District government
(including any independent agency of the District) as of such
date or during the 60-day period which begins on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 152. (a) Management of Existing District Government
Property.--Upon the expiration of the 60-day period that
begins on the date of the enactment of this Act, none of the
funds contained in this Act may be used to enter into a lease
(or to make rental payments under such a lease) for the use
of real property by the District of Columbia government
(including any independent agency of the District) or to
purchase real property for the use of District of Columbia
government (including any independent agency of the District)
or to manage real property for the use of the District of
Columbia (including any independent agency of the District)
unless the following conditions are met:
(1) The Mayor and Council of the District of Columbia
certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and Senate that existing real property
available to the District (whether leased or owned by the
District government) is not suitable for the purposes
intended.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, there is
made available for sale or lease all real property of the
District of Columbia that the Mayor from time to time
determines is surplus to the needs of the District of
Columbia, unless a majority of the members of the Council
override the Mayor's determination during the 30-day period
which begins on the date the determination is published.
(3) The Mayor and Council implement a program for the
periodic survey of all District property to determine if it
is surplus to the needs of the District.
(4) The Mayor and Council within 60 days of the date of the
enactment of this Act have filed with the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate,
the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of
the Senate a report which provides a comprehensive plan for
the management of District of Columbia real property assets,
and are proceeding with the implementation of the plan.
(b) Termination of Provisions.--If the District of Columbia
enacts legislation to reform the practices and procedures
governing the entering into of leases for the use of real
property by the District of Columbia government and the
disposition of surplus real property of the District
government, the provisions of subsection (a) shall cease to
be effective upon the effective date of the legislation.
Sec. 153. Section 158(b) of Public Law 106-113, approved
November 29, 1999 (113 Stat. 1527) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Source of Funds.--An amount not to exceed $5,000,000
from the National Highway
[[Page H7054]]
System funds apportioned to the District of Columbia under
section 104 of title 23, United States Code, may be used for
purposes of carrying out the project under subsection (a).''
Point of Order
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 153
on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House.
This provision makes changes to existing law by earmarking up to $5
million of the District of Columbia's Federal highway funds to complete
design and environmental requirements for the construction of expanded
lane capacity for the 14th Street Bridge. This would be an
unprecedented earmarking of State formula highway funds by the
Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, put this language in. We have a
desperate situation on the 14th Street Bridge that is going to be
exacerbated by construction on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and
construction on I-66.
Right now, on many days we will see backups for miles both north and
south on the GW Parkway. I am sure that many of the Members who do live
in Virginia are acutely aware of this problem. We need to widen the
14th Street Bridge desperately. It should be taken care of by the
Public Works Committee.
Now, all this is is money for planning, design, and construction to
widen the 14th Street Bridge. I can see that the Public Works Committee
wants to retain all of its prerogatives and this is a turf thing, and
that is understandable.
What we were trying to do was to help out the District of Columbia so
they did not have to take it from their own transportation money.
No good deed generally goes unpunished, and I see this good deed is
going to be punished. So I understand the motion of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). There is little we can do at this point because,
under the parliamentary rules, it is a point of order.
At this point I would concede the point of order.
{time} 1615
The CHAIRMAN. Section 153 of the bill proposes directly to amend
existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2(b) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 153
is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 154. (a) Certification.--None of the funds contained
in this Act may be used after the expiration of the 30-day
period that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act
to pay the salary of any chief financial officer of any
office of the District of Columbia government (including the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority and any independent agency of the
District) who has not filed a certification with the Mayor
and the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia
that the officer understands the duties and restrictions
applicable to the officer as a result of this Act (and the
amendments made by this Act), including any duty to prepare a
report requested either in the Act or in any of the reports
accompanying the Act and the deadline by which each report
must be submitted, and the District's Chief Financial Officer
shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and the House of Representatives by the 10th day after
the end of each quarter a summary list showing each report,
the due date and the date submitted to the Committees.
(b) Penalty.--Any chief financial officer who carries out
any activity in violation of any provision of this Act or any
amendment made by this Act shall be subject to a civil money
penalty in accordance with applicable District of Columbia
law.
Sec. 155. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of the
District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel
Act of 1978 (D.C. Law 2-139; D.C. Code 1-601.1 et seq.), or
any other District of Columbia law, statute, regulation, the
provisions of the District of Columbia Personnel Manual, or
the provisions of any collective bargaining agreement,
employees of the District of Columbia government will only
receive compensation for overtime work in excess of 40 hours
per week (or other applicable tour of duty) or work actually
performed, in accordance with the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section shall be effective
December 27, 1996 in order to ratify and approve the
Resolution and Order of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, dated
December 27, 1996.
Sec. 156. The proposed budget of the government of the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 2002 that is submitted
by the District to Congress shall specify potential
adjustments that might become necessary in the event that the
management savings achieved by the District during the year
do not meet the level of management savings projected by the
District under the proposed budget.
Sec. 157. In submitting any document showing the budget for
an office of the District of Columbia government (including
an independent Agency of the District) that contains a
category of activities labeled as ``other'',
``miscellaneous'', or a similar general, nondescriptive term,
the document shall include a description of the types of
activities covered in the category and a detailed breakdown
of the amount allocated for each such activity.
Sec. 158. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to
legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the
possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance
under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any
tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
(b) The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative of 1998, also know as Initiative 59, approved by
the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 1998,
shall not take effect.
Sec. 159. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia, in consultation with the
committee established under section 603(e)(2)(B) of the
Student Loan Marketing Association Reorganization Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 8009-293, as amended by Public
Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1526), is hereby authorized to
allocate the District's limitation amount of qualified zone
academy bonds (established pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 1397E) among
qualified zone academies within the District.
Sec. 160. (a) Section 11232 of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (sec. 24-1232, DC Code) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (f) through (i) as
subsections (g) through (j); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection:
``(f) Treatment as Federal Employees.--
``(1) In general.--The Trustee and employees of the Trustee
who are not covered under subsection (e) shall be treated as
employees of the Federal Government solely for purposes of
the following provisions of title 5, United States Code:
``(A) Chapter 83 (relating to retirement).
``(B) Chapter 84 (relating to the Federal Employees'
Retirement System).
``(C) Chapter 87 (relating to life insurance).
``(D) Chapter 89 (relating to health insurance).
``(2) Effective dates of coverage.--The effective dates of
coverage of the provisions of paragraph (1) are as follows:
``(A) In the case of the Trustee and employees of the
Office of the Trustee and the Office of Adult Probation,
August 5, 1997, or the date of appointment, whichever is
later.
``(B) In the case of employees of the Office of Parole,
October 11, 1998, or the date of appointment, whichever is
later.
``(C) In the case of employees of the Pretrial Services
Agency, January 3, 1999, or the date of appointment,
whichever is later.
``(3) Rate of contributions.--The Trustee shall make
contributions under the provisions referred to in paragraph
(1) at the same rates applicable to agencies of the Federal
Government.
``(4) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management
shall issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out
this subsection.''.
(b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of title XI of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997.
Sec. 161. It is the sense of Congress that the patients of
Saint Elizabeths Hospital and the taxpayers of the District
of Columbia are being poorly served by the current facilities
and management of the Hospital.
Sec. 162. It is the sense of Congress that the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority should quickly complete the sale of the Franklin
School property, a property which has been vacant for over 20
years.
Sec. 163. It is the sense of Congress that the District of
Columbia government should take all steps necessary to ensure
that officials of the District government (including
officials of the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
independent agencies, boards, commissions, and corporations
of the government) maintain a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers
of the District in the administration of funds under their
control.
Sec. 164. No amounts may be made available during fiscal
year 2001 to the District of Columbia Health and Hospitals
Public Benefit Corporation (through reprogramming, transfers,
loans, or any other mechanism) other than the amounts which
are otherwise provided for the Corporation in this Act under
the heading ``District of Columbia Health and Hospitals
Public Benefit Corporation''.
Sec. 165. (a) For each payment or group of payments made by
or on behalf of the District of Columbia Health and Hospitals
Public Benefit Corporation, the Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia shall sign an affidavit certifying
that the making of the payment does not constitute a
violation of any provision of subchapter III of chapter
[[Page H7055]]
13 of title 31, United States Code, or of any provision of
this Act.
(b) More than one payment may be covered by the same
affidavit under subsection (a), but a single affidavit may
not cover more than one week's worth of payments.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to order any other
person to sign any affidavit required under this section, or
for any person to provide any signature required under this
section on such an affidavit by proxy or by machine,
computer, or other facsimile device.
Sec. 166. The District of Columbia Health and Hospitals
Public Benefit Corporation may not obligate or expend any
amounts during fiscal year 2001 unless (at the time of the
obligation or expenditure) the Corporation certifies that the
obligation or expenditure is within the budget authority
provided to the Corporation in this Act.
Sec. 167. Nothing in this Act bars the District of Columbia
Corporation Counsel from reviewing or commenting on briefs in
private lawsuits, or from consulting with officials of the
District government regarding such lawsuits.
Sec. 168. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Health Insurance Coverage for Contraceptives Act of 2000
(D.C. Bill 13-399) shall not take effect.
(b) Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent the
Council or Mayor of the District of Columbia from addressing
the issue of the provision of contraceptive coverage by
health insurance plans, but it is the intent of Congress that
any legislation enacted on such issue should include a
``conscience clause'' which provides exceptions for religious
beliefs and moral convictions.
amendment no. 23 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. 23 printed in the Congressional Record
offered by Ms. Norton:
In section 168, strike ``(a)'' and all that follows through
``(b)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to ask that subsection (a) of section 168 be stricken as moot.
It certainly repeals a section of D.C. law soon to be vetoed locally.
The Congress like every legislature or law enforcement body always
prefers to have people act on their own.
This is what the mayor and the D.C. council have done to extinguish
the controversy that arose concerning the council bill to provide
contraception as an option in insurance sold in the District. The
council, on its own, came close to adopting a conscience clause but
narrowly failed. Now indisputably the council is ready, willing and
able to act. A joint letter from Mayor Anthony Williams and Council
Chair Linda Cropp to the chairman indicated that they, quote, ``who
know the issues best and all the parties well are prepared to address
the necessary clause, giving great weight to parties in the District
who advocate family planning and religious liberty,'' end quote.
To make good on his letter, the mayor publicly announced, on
television, that he will pocket veto the contraception bill and work
with the council to produce an acceptable compromise. The mayor is
using a pocket veto rather than a veto now not because of any
reluctance to veto the bill but because he has taken upon himself to
bring all the parties together to a solution acceptable to all.
Mayor Williams is himself Catholic, and he has met with Auxiliary
Bishop William Lori. He knows his council, and his judgment is that a
pocket veto is what is appropriate if the point is to reach a solution
acceptable to church and state alike, rather than further polarize the
parties. The letter from Council Chair Cropp and Mayor Williams to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the Mayor's public
announcement that he will pocket veto the bill as well as assurances of
the pocket veto received here in writing to the chairman makes
subsection (a) of section 168 moot. What would remain is section
168(b).
This section relating to religious and moral concerns more than
satisfies the issue that has been raised in the Congress. Not to strike
section (a) comes close to an insult to the Mayor and the Council Chair
who have given their word in writing and publicly. In political life, a
public man or woman's word is his or her bond. What D.C. officials have
written and the Mayor has publicly declared concerning a pocket veto
surely closes the circle and gives all the assurances that out of
respect and dignity should ever be asked.
There is more. As you know, D.C. law is not law until it lays over
for 30 legislative days. That time frame means that considering the
upcoming recess days, no bill could become law until sometime in March.
To add to that insurance policy, the Congress can on its own, sui
sponte, introduce and enact any bill or amendment concerning the
District, such is your all-consuming power over the District of
Columbia.
Mayor Anthony Williams and Council Chair Linda Cropp and the D.C.
City Council deserve their dignity as grown-up public officials with
reputations for integrity elected to govern our Nation's capital. I ask
you to show them the same respect we ourselves would demand. Please
strike section 168(a).
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to have a somewhat mixed response to the comments by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. What we are talking about
here has not, I do not think, been fully stated, and it needs to be. I
believe the date was July 11 when the Council had its meeting.
At that meeting, an ordinance came up for consideration requiring
placing a mandate compelling employers in the District of Columbia to
make one portion of health insurance coverage be that contraceptives
would be covered, that they would be part of the benefit. Now, we could
have a separate debate, we are not going to, but we could have a
separate debate about what happens when you keep putting different
mandates on health insurance.
No matter how common sense some particular mandate may seem to some
people, it still drives up the cost. It is like every time you buy a
car, they say, do you want this option or that option, or anything else
that you purchase that you have got options, the more options you
choose, the higher it costs. The same thing is true, of course, with
health insurance.
If you require that people cannot buy health insurance unless you get
it with all these options, then you find that nobody can buy plain
coverage. Just like they could not buy a plain car if they had to buy
the ones with all the options with it. Now, that is a separate issue
because frankly it is not the core of the debate but that is where it
started.
They said we want to mandate. We want to make sure if you are an
employer in the District of Columbia and you are offering health care
benefits, you cannot do it unless you include coverage for
contraceptives. In the process of doing so, there had been a lot of
work behind the scenes and a lot of debate and a lot of effort by the
D.C. Council and by people within the community bringing up the issue
of a conscience clause.
The Catholic Church, and entities affiliated with it, which has
religious beliefs that are negative toward contraceptives, at least in
the way that many other people may look at them, but the Catholic
Church is a major employer in the District of Columbia. Georgetown
University, the hospital services they provide, I will mention maybe as
part of the laundry list later, but the point is they said, ``For us
and for other people, you are asking us to be doing something that is
against our beliefs. You shouldn't do that.''
We have got the first amendment protecting religion in this country.
And what happened--and people saw it on TV, and they read about it--was
that a little bit of a fire storm developed because rather than
accommodating a good faith request for a conscience clause for people
who have a religious or moral problem with providing contraceptives,
the D.C. Council ran roughshod over them. Not only that, they conducted
a hearing that was vitriolic toward people of faith in general and the
Catholic Church in particular.
That did not sit well with this Congress. That did not sit well with
a great many people in the District. That did not sit well with people
in the country. So we put in the bill a simple
[[Page H7056]]
provision under our authority, under our obligation of article 1,
section 8 of the Constitution, to have the legislative authority over
the District of Columbia, saying this proposed law, that I believe
ultimately was even adopted unanimously by the D.C. Council, this
proposed law shall not take effect, cannot do it. And if you come back
to fix things, to adopt a conscience clause, make sure that it covers
religious beliefs and moral convictions, which is the law that is found
in the Federal standard that we have adopted, for example, for the
Federal employees health benefit plan. The Federal standard provides
coverage for contraceptives but does not mandate that it has to be done
so in violation of a religious belief or a moral conviction of the
employer, employee and so forth. So we have got that in there.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, however, makes an
objection to the portion, and to her credit she is not asking that we
strike the entire section, she is not asking that and nobody should
think that she is. She is not asking that we strike the section that
says if they come back and do something again, they must provide a
conscience clause for religious belief and moral conviction. What she
is requesting is that we strike the part that says this proposed law
shall not go into effect.
Well, why? Because, she says, having been subjected to this fire
storm, the mayor and the council have learned and they have made public
statements that they intend to do this and the mayor has made a public
statement, indeed he has done so to me in writing, that he intends to
do a pocket veto of the bill.
Now, that legislation was passed by the D.C. Council a couple of
weeks ago, and he has had an opportunity to veto this legislation. He
has had the opportunity. He could just take it, write veto, and it is
vetoed. And then what is left for us to do?
Instead, he said he wants to use a procedure that drags it out, that
gives them, I think it is about 10 business days or so, that may
ultimately result in vetoing that legislation which so many people find
so offensive, but he has not done it yet. We are dealing with the here
and now. We are talking about the current circumstances, which is that
this provision is alive, and people want to look to us and they say,
``We don't want you to demonstrate the disregard for religious
convictions and beliefs of people of faith in this country that was
demonstrated by the Council in the District of Columbia.'' They want to
make sure that we take action to show which side we are on on this
issue.
If we do not use our opportunity to disapprove it, who are we siding
with? The mayor could veto this bill, the bill that was passed by the
D.C. Council. He could veto it. He has chosen not to do so. He has said
he will do it with a pocket veto in the future. I believe him.
Nevertheless, right now it is a live issue. And since a live issue is
before us and people in the District government knew the basic schedule
of when this bill would come to the floor, they could have taken action
before it got to this point. They have not chosen to do so. The D.C.
Council could have gotten together and said, we rescind, we take back
what we did. They have not done that. They have had time to do it. They
have not done it. People want to know where we stand. I believe that
we, under the situation as it exists now, should not accept this
amendment, we should oppose it, but certainly we look forward to the
future when the D.C. Council and the mayor will actually take action,
not just say they are going to do something but will actually take
action to fix this situation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to include a letter from the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops and printed excerpts from D.C. Council
proceedings on this issue.
National Conference of
Catholic Bishops,
Washington, DC, July 25, 2000.
To Hon. Ernest Istook, Jr.
Dear Member of Congress: As the House of Representatives
considers the District of Columbia appropriations bill for
Fiscal Year 2001, I write to explain the need for strong
conscience protection in the bill's provision on mandated
contraceptive coverage.
As approved by committee, the bill prevents implementation
of the D.C. City Council's proposal to force all employers in
the District of Columbia, to buy coverage for a broad range
of contraceptives and abortifacient ``morning-after'' drugs
for their employees. The bill also expresses the intent of
Congress that any future D.C. legislation on this issue
include a conscience clause that ``provides exceptions for
religious beliefs and moral convictions.''
On the House floor there may be an effort to delete or
weaken this provision, possibly by deleting conscience
protection based on moral convictions. Congress should reject
such a change.
We object to a government mandate for contraceptive
coverage generally. At a time when tens of millions of
Americans lack even the most basic health coverage, effort to
mandate elective drugs and devices which raise serious moral
problems and can pose their own health risks are misguided.
In addition, any such mandate will cause needless injustice
if it does not provide full protection to those who object
for reason of conscience. This is so for several reasons:
Narrow Language Protecting only Churches Is Inadequate.
City Council members who strongly favor the contraceptive
mandate offered a concscience clause protecting only
``religious organizations'' when they approved their bill
July 11. But they defined a ``religious organization'' so
narrowly that it would exclude hospitals, universities,
religiously affiliated social service agencies such as
Catholic Charities, and even Catholic elementary schools. An
organization could qualify for exemption only it its
``primary purpose'' is the ``inculcation of religious
beliefs''--and as a Council member observed, Catholic schools
teach subjects other than religion. The Council also would
have assessed a fine against each religious organization
claiming an exemption; the fine would defray the costs of
investigations by the D.C. Insurance Commissioner to ensure
that the organization is ``reglious enough.'' Council members
who support genuine conscience protection rightly declined
the offer of ``protection'' framed in this way. A vague
requirement to protect only ``religious beliefs,''
however, may invite renewed mischief of this kind.
Moral Concerns and Abortifacient Drugs. The D.C. mandate
requires coverage of all prescription drugs and devices
approved by the FDA for contraception, including, what the
FDA calls ``postcoital emergency contraception.'' Aside from
specifically religious concerns, there is broad agreement
that such drugs often work by destroying an early human
embryo. This raises moral concerns about early abortion which
transcend any particular religion. Congress itself bans
federal funding of experiments that harm or destroy human
embryos in the first two weeks of life--a sound moral
decision based on no one religious belief. Congress should
not deny the same right of morally based decision making to
others.
Federal Precedent on Rights on Conscience. Numerous
conscience clauses in federal law protect conscientious
objection based on both religious and moral grounds, in
contexts ranging from capital punishment to abortion and
sterilization. Many state laws are similarly broad. These are
based on a sound understanding that forcing someone to engage
in activity that violates his or her deeply held
conscientious beliefs is a violation of human rights and an
abuse of government. Clearly, not all conscientious moral
convictions are based on religious belief. Indeed, Congress
protects medical residency programs from being forced to
provide abortion training regardless of whether their
opposition is morally based, because abortion is simply not
the kind of practice which anyone should be forced to
participate in for any reason. Current protections against
forced participation in abortion and sterilization also
extend to organizations as well as individuals. To retreat
from this tradition now in favor of narrower and more
grudging protection restricted to religious belief alone
would send an ominous signal regarding the U.S. government's
respect for rights of conscience.
Protecting Individuals' Conscience Rights. By mandating
prescription contraceptive coverage in health plans, the
government increases the pressure on individual physicians
and pharmacists in these plans to violate their own
consciences. Even without a government mandate, pharmacists'
careers have been endangered when they refuse on moral
grounds to fill prescriptions for abortifacient ``emergency
contraception'' (see J. Allen, ``Morning-after pill'' battles
flare: Patients, doctors, druggists in birth-control tug of
war,'' Washington Times, May 27, 1997, p. A3). In light of
such cases, the American Pharmaceutical Association and other
organizations have urged respect for rights of
``conscientious refusal'' which they do not confine to
religious grounds. Codes of medical ethics, as well,
generally speak of physicians' right to refuse participation
in activities they find immoral or unethical. The federal
government has already enacted conscience protection based on
both religious and moral convictions for health care
personnel in health plans providing coverage to federal
employees. It should do no less here, attending as well to
employees who could be forced by government to purchase
morally objectionable contraceptive coverage or forgo
prescription drug coverage altogether.
We believe contraceptive mandates should not be imposed on
private organizations. But if some form of mandate is
adopted, effective
[[Page H7057]]
protection for conscientious objection on both moral and
religious grounds should be ensured.
Sincerely yours,
Rev. Msgr. Dennis M. Schnurr,
General Secretary.
____
Remarks by DC City Council on Contraceptive Coverage
kathleen patterson (ward 3)
``It would, in fact, put the District in the role of
sanctioning workplace discrimination. . . . If we approve
this amendment, we are, as a matter of policy, permitting one
particular large and powerful institution to between low
income District women and comprehensive health care
coverage.''
sharon ambrose (ward 6)
``If some other religion, let's say some other religion
that was not quite so large an employer in Ward 5 and in the
city in general as is the Holy Roman Church. Let us say
another religion, Mrs. Allen's Sunday Morning Worship Service
over on K St., SE . . . what if decided it was going to
exclude certain employees of its large church kitchen from
coverage in its plan. Would that be, would that be OK?''
jim graham (ward 1)
``And you know, I spent years in this city fighting--and
let me mention the Catholic Church by name--fighting Church
dogma in terms of availability of condoms in this city which
prevented, which prevented us have from having an effective
program in many instances for the prevention of the
transmission of HIV. Now I see on both of these amendemnts .
. . the standard is religious belief, religious belief
whether it be bona fide or not. I am very concerned about
having religious principles impact health policy . . . what
does this mean is terms of domestic partnership? . . . Are we
going to say that we are going to defer to Rome in terms of
our views on whether domestic partners should be covered by
insurance plans that happen to be operated by religious
organizations?''
david catania (at-large)
``I mean, so to suggest that the church is somehow unduly
burdened in this society by this minor provision, I think is
absurd . . . And, I want to associate myself very strongly
with the comments of Mr. Graham on other issues, not only
with respect to the teaching of some churches on gay and
lesbian issues, but also the role of fighting against the use
of contraceptives and role that it has in the spread of HIV,
. . . ''
kevin chavous (ward 7)
``. . . And not necessarily this feeling that we should
respect the individual religious doctrine of a certain
organization. . . . and urge my colleagues to act not just on
this nation that we are, and this has nothing to do with the
separation of church and state. I mean, we're not imposing
our will on any particular religious organization. Again, the
question is to what extent should we accommodate those
religious organizations that seek to profit off of the public
in some way.''
jim graham (ward 1)
``. . . we are permitting religious principles to dictate
public health policy. . . . There is a difference b/n the
words `tenets' and `beliefs,' but it is the same thing. It's
the same thing. The church will now determine, a particular
church will now determine, if, why, whether contraceptives
and contraceptive devices will now be available. We're going
to turn over the responsibility for these decisions in effect
to the pope. . . . Because ROME has determined that this is
against the tenets of the Catholic Church and so you're not
going to have access to this of the terms of your health care
plan . . . My problem of surrending decisions on public
health matters to a church so that religious principles
rather than sound public policy can determine whether a
contraceptive device is or is not available. . . . The church
is homophobic so we have to say, we respect what are
homophobic points of view.''
{time} 1630
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have had it. I have really had it. Why do you see
people go to the gallery, screaming at the top of their lungs,
something I do not encourage now and did not encourage then, it has a
lot to do with what we have just heard.
A mayor of the District of Columbia who has credibility with every
Member of this body has indicated in writing and publicly on television
that he will pocket veto a bill, and the reason he is going to pocket
veto the bill is because if he just vetoed it in the face of the
council, then it would be hard of him to bring the Catholic Church, and
he is a Catholic, together with his council.
He has indicated publicly, this mayor, who has all the credibility in
the world, that he is going to do what this chairman has asked him to
do. The mayor has asked me to accept the language this chairman has
written and this chairman has just gotten up and said that that is not
enough. We, in the District, are damned if we do and we are damned if
we try to do what we say do.
A pocket veto from a mayor who is trying to do what you say do should
be all you need when he has accepted the language that we asked him to
accept and when he is working with his own Catholic Church, and they
have agreed to work with him and they have agreed not to come here to
ask us to do another thing, we ought to declare victory and go home.
I am insulted by the fact that you would not accept my amendment by
how hard my mayor and my city council have worked. You have cast
aspersions on their credibility. You have indicated that the mayor had
nothing to do with the debate in the council, it will never be enough
for you.
You have two more bites at the apple. Supposedly he is a liar, and
that is what you called him today. Supposedly he is a liar. You need to
have a veto. You need to make it almost impossible for him to bring the
sides together by putting a veto in his face. Supposedly he is a liar.
You still have two bites at the apple by rubbing the city's nose in
it, time and time again. Patience is running out with this body. I
resent what the gentleman has done, and I want you to know it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, perhaps some people take
umbrage at the passion of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton), but I would expect that any of us if facing the same
level of frustration and unfairness would react in the same passionate
manner.
She is defending, not only her constituents but a process, a
democratic process, that she believes in that caused all of us to get
into public service, and the fact is, she is right, Madam Chairman. The
mayor of the District of Columbia said he is going to pocket veto this
bill. We have to believe the mayor, I cannot believe any of us do not
believe that he is going to do that. So if we believe he is going to do
that, why are we doing this?
He is going to insist that there be a religious exemption clause.
People that have moral objections are going to be able to raise them.
So why are we doing this, putting this offensive language in this bill?
Just to show that we are more powerful than them, just to show them.
She is right. This is wrong.
Now, let me also say it is wrong for insurance companies to cover
viagra for men and not cover contraception for women. Let us just tell
it like it is. What could be more unfair? All this contraceptive equity
provision says is that insurance companies ought to be fair and start
respecting women, when contraception is the largest single expense,
out-of-pocket expense, for women during most of their lives. It ought
to be covered.
So it is the right legislation. They should have passed this
legislation, and it is also true that most of these Catholic
institutions are self-insured. It does not even apply to them. They are
self-insured.
Let me also say something else. I certainly would never say this if
my own life were different, but having been educated in Catholic
schools all my life, I understand the sense of frustration and
disappointment that Councilman Jim Graham expressed on the D.C. council
on this matter.
He expressed disappointment with the Catholic church as an
institution because of its position towards homosexuality. That is his
right. So I do not blame him for that. I know he wishes he had not said
that, but these are debates that belonged in the D.C. council. These
are debates and issues that should be settled, should be settled by the
D.C. government.
The Catholic institutions within the D.C. government have plenty of
access. They are well respected, deservedly so. They contribute
tremendous benefits to D.C. government and its society. They will be
fully reflected in the legislation that becomes law, and that is the
way it ought to be. We have no business getting involved in this issue,
particularly when we have no legitimate role to play.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is
absolutely right. The mayor is going to take care of that situation.
Let him take care of the situation. He will be held accountable. He
should be held accountable. He
[[Page H7058]]
is elected. He understands it. He has a solution for it, and that is
the way it should be, and what we are doing on this floor is not what
should be done by this Congress. Madam Chairman, I gather we are going
to continue this debate tomorrow.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, although I think everyone wants to continue the
debate tomorrow, I do find it necessary to take at least 30 seconds,
because I think a couple of things need to be said.
I certainly would not endorse and extend the attacks on the Catholic
Church or any other church, whether the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran) wishes to do so is his free speech right. I fear that he has
added fuel to the fire rather than trying to suppress it.
In response to the gentlewoman from the District (Ms. Norton), I said
clearly, and I will repeat it, the mayor said in writing to me that he
intends to do the pocket veto of the bill, and I believe him. That does
not change the fact that it has not been vetoed; it remains a live
issue where people expect this Congress to do something. It is a live
issue until such time as the veto has indeed occurred.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Representative
Norton's Amendment because I am concerned about several of the
provisions in the ``General Provisions'' section of this bill.
Specifically, I object to discriminatory riders targeting the
District's lesbian and gay people, and people living with HIV/AIDS.
Approximately half of all new HIV infections are linked to injection
drug use, and three-quarters of new HIV infections in children are the
result of injection drug use by a parent. Why would we pass up the
opportunity to save a child's life by shutting down programs that work?
Although AIDs deaths have declined in recent years as a result of new
treatments and improved access to care, HIV/AIDS remains the leading
cause of death among African-Americans aged 25-44 in the District. In
spite of these statistics Republicans have singled out the District and
attempted to shut down programs that the local community has
established to reduce new HIV infections. This Congress should be
supporting the decisions that local communities make about their health
care. Giving local control back to the American people has been a major
theme of the current Congress, and interfering with District self-
government is contradictory to that goal.
Numerous health organizations including the American Medical
Association, the American Public Health Association, and the National
Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors have concluded that
needle exchange programs are effective. In addition, at my request the
Surgeon General's office has prepared a review of all peer-reviewed,
scientific studies of needle exchange programs over the past two years
and they also conclusively found that needle exchange programs reduce
HIV transmission and do not increase drug use.
I also object to the provision in this bill that prevents the Health
Care Benefits Expansion Act from being implemented. The District passed
this legislation eight years ago to allow District employees to
purchase health insurance for a domestic partner, take family and
medical leave to care for a partner, and visit a hospitalized partner.
This legislation provides basic, fundamental health care rights that
all Americans should enjoy regardless of sexual orientation.
Over 3,000 employers around the country, including hundreds of
cities, municipalities, private and public college and universities,
have established domestic partnership health programs. A list of these
firms includes almost a hundred Fortune 500 companies, including some
of the biggest, like AT&T, Citigroup, and IBM. These companies
understand the benefits of offering these programs in today's
competitive work environment.
Cities such as Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New
York all have domestic partnership benefits in place. Congress has
taken no action to block any of the domestic partnership benefits
provided by hundreds of municipalities throughout the nation.
Gay and Lesbian Americans in the District of Columbia and across the
country make significant contributions to our society and their
relationships, in the community and in the workplace, should be treated
with respect. I urge my colleagues to support the Norton Amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Morella, Chairman pro
tempore 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.
____________________