[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 126 (Tuesday, September 25, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5984-H6011]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H5984]]
              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Pursuant to House Resolution 
245 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2944.

                              {time}  1104


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2944) 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, 
2002, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bereuter in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  (Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House the Fiscal Year 
2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act. Before I present the 
details of this legislation, I want to remind my colleagues of the 
context in which we consider the bill. A little more than 6 years ago, 
this Congress took a drastic, but necessary, action in response to the 
completely unacceptable financial condition of our Nation's Capital by 
creating the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
Management Assistance Authority, or better known as the Control Board.
  We gave the Control Board authority over virtually every function of 
District governance. We asked it to help the city recover after years 
of mismanagement and accumulated budget deficits. Back in 1995 that 
looked like no small task, and only starry-eyed dreamers would have 
said that just 6 years later the District would have had 4 consecutive 
years of budget surpluses leading to the sunset of the Control Board. 
That is exactly what happened.
  Today is September 25, and in 5 days the Control Board will disband. 
This I believe is a tremendous credit to the steady hand of Mayor 
Anthony Williams and his policies as well as the efforts of Chief 
Financial Officer Nat Gandhi. City Council Chair Linda Cropp also 
deserves recognition, and all of her colleagues on the city council are 
to be commended for their efforts as well.
  Along with the Control Board and the District's delegate to Congress, 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), these 
leaders have turned yesterday's starry-eyed dreams into reality.
  When I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia, I had the benefit of working with a city on the rise.
  From the outset, I said that I wanted to be a partner with the 
District of Columbia and we jointly developed an agenda that promotes 
the continued renaissance of the city. My focus was on economic 
development, education and public safety; and this budget reflects 
those priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, the package before my colleagues is the product of the 
very hard work of every member of the Subcommittee on D.C. 
Appropriations. Each member contributed extensively, and this bill 
reflects our commitment to helping the city.
  I would like to acknowledge the work of two of my colleagues in 
particular. First, I recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). He brought his experience 
in city politics to us and has been an invaluable guide. I believe we 
formed a solid working relationship, and that is what has brought us to 
where we are today.
  I also want to express my appreciation for all that the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) has done to help me find my 
way through this city and to keep me up to date on local issues. She is 
a tireless advocate for the District of Columbia, and Washington, 
D.C.'s residents are fortunate to have her.
  I would also like to recognize a former colleague of ours who is no 
longer here. Julian Dixon, the long-time chairman of this subcommittee, 
passed away late last year; and this is the first D.C. bill that has 
come before this committee since then. A native Washingtonian, he 
chaired the subcommittee for 14 years and was truly a friend of the 
District if there ever was one. He recognized the District's fiscal 
instability and helped get Washington's house in order. His expertise, 
his advice and his counsel are missed.
  The fiscal year 2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act totals 
slightly more than $7.14 billion, of which approximately $5 billion is 
from local funds, and $2.1 billion is from Federal funds, including 
Federal grants. I will not go into the portion of the bill dealing with 
the local funds except to say that we fully funded every penny of the 
city's budget. What the city asked for, we provided.
  The Federal funds portion of the bill, excluding Federal grants, 
totals $398 million, which my colleagues will note is slightly more 
than the $359 million that the President requested, but $66 million 
less than what was enacted in fiscal year 2001. The difference between 
this bill and the President's budget is due primarily to two items: 
first, the bill provides $23.3 million above the President's request to 
the District of Columbia courts for the reform of the D.C. Family 
Court.
  Just last Thursday this House passed the District of Columbia Family 
Courts Act, which provides for the first major overhaul of the District 
of Columbia courts' Family Division in some 30 years. The additional 
funds in this legislation will pay for the transition.
  Second, the bill provides a $16 million Federal payment for security 
planning. The funding was originally intended to offset the cost of 
police protection at the World Bank-IMF meetings, which were supposed 
to occur at the end of this month. Those meetings have been canceled; 
but in light of recent events, we have decided to shift the purpose of 
this funding to the development and implementation of an emergency 
security plan for the District.
  Beyond these two items, this bill fully funds the Federal 
Government's responsibilities in the District of Columbia, including, 
among other things, $17 million in resident college tuition support, 
$5.5 million for the Children's National Medical Center, $585,000 for 
the chief medical examiner to clear a backlog of autopsies, and $1 
million for the St. Colletta of Greater Washington Expansion project.
  In addition, this legislation eliminates 35 of the 69 general 
provisions contained in last year's bill. Let me repeat that. The bill 
deletes over half of the general provisions that were in last year's 
bill. I conducted a thorough review of each and every general provision 
and removed the ones that are now permanent law, not requested by the 
President, or had been rendered obsolete.
  I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) have expressed 
reservations about certain parts of this bill. As the managers' 
amendment that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and I 
offered at the Committee on Rules will attest, I am committed to 
working with them and will continue to do so as the bill winds its way 
through the legislative process. I am hopeful that we can reach a 
solution that is satisfactory to all.
  Before I close, I would like to thank the many staff members who make 
it possible to bring this bill to the floor today. Migo Miconi and Mary 
Porter of the subcommittee staff and Jeff Onizuk and Candra Symonds 
from my staff have been invaluable in this whole process. Let me also 
say that Tom Forhan of the minority staff has been of great help. We 
reasoned together and talked things through, and I appreciate his 
support; and also Williams Miles from the personal staff of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). They all deserve great 
applause.
  Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia is a city full of treasures 
and rich history and should be the crown jewel of all American cities. 
After all, the

[[Page H5985]]

leading Nation in the world deserves a world-class capital. Make no 
mistake, the District of Columbia is on its way back, and this 
legislation is another important step. This is a good bill, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am submitting at this point for the Record a chart 
comparing the amounts recommended in H.R. 2499 with the appropriations 
for fiscal year 2001 and the request for fiscal year 2002:

[[Page H5986]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25SE01.001



[[Page H5987]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25SE01.002



[[Page H5988]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the majority chairman of this 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for doing 
a magnificent job with an extraordinary degree of sensitivity to the 
issues involved and the intricacies involved in the affairs of the 
capital city. He has visited schools, met with local officials, worked 
with the delegate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton), and been ever-present in the effort to work toward a piece of 
legislation that could build a strong consensus in this Congress.

                              {time}  1115

  I want to commend him and his staff, for we have a bill that I 
support, and I know that as we move the manager's amendment and our 
work in conference will even be a better bill than it is now. But it is 
the best bill for the District that has arrived on this floor in many, 
many years.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is not the only Member 
of the majority, there are others like my friend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham) and others who have shown in the various 
committee meetings a real sensitivity and a legitimate effort to make 
this city a better place. I want to commend them. I would like to thank 
the staff, particularly Tom Forhan and William Miles, for their work. 
And for the majority staff also, Migo and his team, because they have 
done a terrific job.
  This bill, as has been stated, is about $65 million less than what 
the appropriation was last year. It is about $30 million above what the 
President requested. It represents a response to the needs of the 
school district with its 68,000 children and the need for a first-class 
police department. It responds to each and every item that the city has 
suggested that they have a need at the dollar amount that was 
requested.
  There are a number of issues that deserve mention. I will first start 
with the fiscal control board, a piece of legislation that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and myself and a number of 
others, like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) worked on in my first term in 
this Congress. This control board has worked very well. This city has 
had an improvement in its bond ratings for each of the last 4 years. It 
has a cash reserve that I think is unmatched by any other American 
city. The mayor and the city council deserve all of the credit, working 
with the control board, to moving the fiscal functioning of this city 
to where it is today.
  I would also like to take a minute to talk about the tuition support 
program, another piece of legislation that I had an opportunity to join 
with a number of my colleagues in cosponsoring, for it has responded to 
the needs of literally hundreds and hundreds of students from the 
District and allowing them to pursue an education in colleges all 
across this country and to do so at an in-State tuition rate. It is, I 
think, representative of the kind of legislation that this House can 
produce when we avoid getting mired down in the activities of trying to 
micromanage the District, but really focus on a higher mission, which 
is how to really improve the capital city and its functioning in a 
cooperative way with the local officials.
  All that is good about this bill could and hopefully will not be 
overshadowed by some of the activity that will take place after the 
general debate. There will be amendments unfortunately in which some of 
my colleagues, I believe, perhaps, well intentioned, but nonetheless, 
will attempt to overrule, not just the wisdom of the full committee 
when we made certain decisions about how the bill should be finally 
shaped when it was brought to the floor, but, moreover, they will 
attempt in these amendments to micromanage and to overrule the local 
city council and the mayor.
  I want to say one thing about this. The District of Columbia and its 
citizens, who have sent more people to be involved in our military than 
many of our States, they pay a higher share of taxes than some of our 
States in terms of the total aggregate amount, deserve a right to have 
their votes count. They have no vote here on the floor of the House or 
in the U.S. Senate. The only place that they really have a vote is when 
they vote for city council and for the mayor. We should respect those 
votes in a way in which when the city council and the mayor come to a 
consensus around even controversial public policy, that we avoid the 
need for the Congress to try to sit as a larger city council. We come 
from other places and other towns, many who have made decisions on 
these similar types of matters, and we should not, unless it is a 
matter of national policy for the whole country, interject ourselves in 
the affairs of the capital city. I would hope that we would avoid that 
today.
  I would like to compliment the full committee for avoiding it and 
voting in the right way on these issues when we dealt with this bill in 
full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations who does extraordinary work in so many 
ways.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I 
also rise to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) 
for having done an outstanding job in developing this legislation, 
which is one of the best D.C. appropriations bills that we have seen in 
a long time, and also the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) who was there every step of the way and had a 
lot of input in how this bill was finally developed.
  When the gentleman from Michigan became chairman of this subcommittee 
at the beginning of the Congress, I asked him to do two things: One was 
to have as good a relationship between the Congress and the Nation's 
capital city, Washington, D.C., as was humanly possible. I think he has 
done that extremely well. Also, I asked him to avoid using this bill as 
a vehicle for many riders that really did not belong on an 
appropriations bill. I think he deserves a tremendous round of applause 
for having eliminated 35 of those riders that really did not belong on 
this bill at any time, and especially not this year.
  So he has done a really good job. He has done a good job for our 
capital city, he has done a good job in the proper positioning of the 
Congress relative to the capital city, and he has established a great 
working relationship with the minority and his ranking member. He has 
already complimented the staff, and they certainly deserve those 
compliments because they have done a good job. While this is not one of 
the larger appropriations bills, oftentimes it has been one of the most 
difficult to prepare and to pass through the Congress. They have done a 
good job. They worked well with the city. They worked well with the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). That is the 
type of teamwork that we believe the American people want to see.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. At 
the same time I thank him for very hard work on this appropriation. The 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) began his chairmanship by 
seeking a smooth and fair appropriation process as the chairman of the 
full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and our ranking 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), always have. This year 
we have not had to pull our Appropriation Committee chairman and our 
full ranking committee into this little appropriation just to help us 
get it through because of the work of our chairman and ranking member 
of our subcommittee.
  Even when the chairman and I have disagreed as we have occasionally, 
he has been a pleasure to work with, not only because of his well-known 
pleasant disposition, there have been lots of folks with pleasant 
dispositions where when it came to the District appropriation, that did 
not much matter. It has a lot to do with the way in which the chairman 
has approached his job. He

[[Page H5989]]

said to himself, ``What am I? I am an appropriator. My job is to get 
this appropriation out. Let me see if I can do that the best way I 
can.'' With that workmanlike approach to his job, whenever he and I 
have had some points of disagreement, we have simply agreed to disagree 
and try to work it out.
  I hope that the way in which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg) and I have worked sets a precedent for how the D.C. 
appropriation will be handled in the future. The chairman said early 
on, for example, as he took over the chairmanship, that attachments to 
the D.C. appropriation were not welcome or appropriate. The ranking 
member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) is the first big-
city leader of the D.C. subcommittee since the death of the legendary 
Julian Dixon.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania has brought very unusual, special 
skill and insight to this subcommittee. How lucky we are that as we 
emerge from a control board, we have gotten a ranking member who helped 
bring his own big city out of precisely the situation the District of 
Columbia found itself, so that I have turned to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for special advice given his long history and 
his extraordinary unique background so relevant to our own city.
  Mr. Chairman, especially at a time when Congress has made a 
successful effort, at least thus far, to put aside the usual quarrels, 
I hope that the bipartisanship we have shown on other matters will be 
especially evident on the D.C. appropriation. After all, it is the 
smallest. It is really tiny. It is a tiny fraction of every other 
appropriation. It consists almost entirely of local funds, raised from 
local taxpayers. It is a local budget that does not belong here at all.
  I apologize that you are distracted by having to get into the 
business of a local jurisdiction. You should be embarrassed at a time 
like this to have to do so. Finding ourselves distracted from the most 
serious business, the business of war and peace following a vicious 
attack on American soil, I can only hope that this body will not allow 
the local budget of a city to detain us long or headlines to read after 
this matter is done here, Congress of the United States Overturns the 
Laws in Its Own Capital, even as it is asking, telling us, that the 
country is fighting in behalf of democracy.
  At a time when our country's message to the world is that we are 
defending democracy and freedom, I ask that no attempt be made to 
nullify the democratically expressed will of the people of the District 
of Columbia by attachments that overturn local law.
  D.C. is in sterling shape. That is an amazing thing to say to this 
body, who saw just the opposite just a few years ago. The city should 
be rewarded, not burdened with intervention, from this body. Imagine, 
this city has a larger surplus than our neighboring State of Maryland, 
a rich State, with all kinds of industry. Virginia has no surplus at 
all. The District has outdistanced its rich local States through its 
own prudence. This Congress needs to say to the District, ``Well done. 
We're going to step back when you do as well as you have done.''
  The control board goes out at the end of this appropriation period. 
We have investment grade bonds. Our cup does not run over. Our cup has 
been filled by the people of the District of Columbia and the prudence 
of its public officials. This bill is moving forward with flaws, budget 
deletions that should not have been touched, but progress made by the 
relationship that I have formed with the ranking member and with the 
chairman. Thirty-five redundant and duplicative provisions removed. We 
are going to go after the rest of them next time. But I appreciate the 
progress we have made. Fewer attachments compared to prior years, when 
attachments had become a chronic disease on the D.C. appropriation.
  Make the D.C. bill a bill worth supporting by clearing attachments 
from the bill. Do not mar this bill. Let us keep us moving forward in 
the way that the chairman and the ranking member have said.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who is a valuable member of 
this committee. He has been involved in the environmental arena and the 
education arena.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, 8 years ago I was put on the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, and I am still on the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, because I volunteered to stay 
there. This was during the time of Marion Berry, and I thought what 
better place can we make some changes.
  I set out in three specific areas. One, the education system. You 
recognize, the fire department had to take over control. The roofs, the 
schools did not open because the roofs were unsafe and the schools were 
unsafe. We got in a new school board, we reorganized, we took some of 
the board members off who were totally unqualified, and the new board 
has done a good job with charter schools, et cetera.
  The one area that I am disappointed in this bill is that for two of 
those terms I was enabled to take the trial lawyers, liberal trial 
lawyers that were ripping off the system within the special education 
program, and they had charter organizations that would literally take 
millions of dollars out of the special education program. We stopped 
that. We capped the trial lawyers' fees and put in valuable programs 
for special education and children, but yet no child was left without 
representation. I hope that the Senate takes that up. I think they are, 
and hopefully that will be changed in the Senate, like it was last 
year.
  Another area was the waterfront. The U.S.S. John Glenn, an ice 
cutter, when we lost an airliner on the 14th Street Bridge the only 
ship that could get to that was the U.S.S. John Glenn, an ice cutter, 
fire boat, to rescue those people. The chairman specifically, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the ranking member, 
supported putting the new engine that was needed, so for airlines and 
the waterfront, that will provide a lot of safety for that particular 
area.
  One of the areas that I am also not that happy with on the 
waterfront, when I first started, this city would only give 1-year 
leases. No one is going to invest in a waterfront to make it like a San 
Diego waterfront.
  The City Council at that time was taking money under the table to 
support leases. We changed that. But one of the areas now is when the 
city assigned an 8(a) to do some work down on the waterfront. The 
original bid was $1.6 million. They said well, let us do it with an 
8(a), a small business. I said okay. But now that same 8(a), that has 
never done this kind of work, where it would be done by professionals 
at $1.6 million, it is now $2.6 million, and they are giving the Corps 
of Engineers $300,000 and the 8(a) $200,000, which will be taken off 
the top. That is $1.5 million that I think is squandered in this 
particular bill.
  I am going to ask within the conference that we get support from both 
sides to account for that $1.5 million that is not going to the 
waterfront, because of, in my opinion, mismanagement.
  I support the bill. What better place, two Irishmen, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and myself, have become very, very close 
friends when he was ranking member, and I thank the ranking minority 
member as well.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time and for his leadership, and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  This is a good bill, but I do have a problem with it. The problem is 
with the rule. The rule should not have made in order the Weldon 
amendment, because we had a better bill coming out than might pass if 
we include the Weldon amendment.
  This is a time when we need to come together as a Nation. We should 
not be advancing amendments that are intended to divide us. That is 
what the Weldon amendment would do. It would reverse a vote on the full 
Committee on Appropriations that took place last week, and it took 
place purely on the substance of the issue.
  In 1992, the District of Columbia passed a domestic partnership 
program. We have forbidden them from implementing that program for the

[[Page H5990]]

last 9 years. All it did was say that the District employees can 
purchase health insurance at their own expense for a domestic partner. 
Who qualifies? Well, disabled people and their health care provider, 
two widows or widowers living together, a grandmother and mother who 
are jointly raising children, two relatives raising their children 
together, as well as domestic partners.
  The amendment today would continue the ban on the use of local funds 
to implement the Domestic Partnership Act. But no Federal funds are 
involved. Why are we involved? Why should we be against expanding 
health care coverage to widows, to children and to unmarried couples? 
They are using their own money. If they do not use their own money, 
many of them will have to be financed by the Medicaid program. Most of 
which is paid for by Federal funds. It just does not make sense, and I 
think it is mean-spirited as well.
  Throughout this country, in Los Angeles; in Denver; in Baltimore; in 
Seattle; in St. Louis; in Philadelphia; in Pittsburgh; in Austin, 
Texas; in Iowa City, Idaho; Tucson, Arizona all those cities have the 
same domestic partnership policy. Yet we are denying it to the District 
of Columbia to be able to use their own funds and to enable people to 
purchase at their own expense health insurance?
  Why should we be doing this kind of legislation? No Member is on the 
floor today proposing that they ban domestic partnership programs in 
their own cities, in their own jurisdiction. There are over 113 State 
and local governments that have this policy, at least 155 colleges and 
universities, more than 145 of the largest corporations in the country, 
at least 4,000 other private companies and not-for-profits.
  The Weldon amendment should be defeated, and then let us enact a good 
bill.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the chairman of the authorizing committee 
and a person I have worked with on a number of problems and situations.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank my good friend, 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for yielding me time, but 
also for the kind of work that has been done on this bill.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and his staff 
deserve a great deal of credit for their tireless work on the D.C. 
appropriations bill this year. In particular, I want to compliment the 
chairman for producing a generally clean budget, devoid of some of the 
provisions and limitations that have rightly disturbed D.C. officials 
in the past. It actually provides for the amount of money that had been 
requested by the mayor and the council.
  I also think this is an appropriate time to publicly thank once again 
members of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
Management Assistance Authority, which we call the Control Board. The 
Control Board has played a pivotal role in helping the District turn 
around a huge budget deficit, improve its bond rating, and begin the 
process of making government more citizen-friendly.
  The Control Board's tenure expires on Sunday, but it is all of our 
hope that its legacy of fiscal prudence has made an indelible mark on 
the city. Indeed, as the economy continues to slow, the District must 
resist spending pressures that could return it to the days of financial 
crisis. It also must continue to work on strengthening internal 
accounting. The recent disclosure that the D.C. public school system 
has overspent its budget by $80 million represents an astounding lapse 
in management. This must serve as a final wake-up call if the city is 
to thrive in the post-Control Board era.
  As the city goes forward, this fiscal year 2002 budget will be of 
help as it addresses some substantial needs for the District. First and 
foremost, it provides more than $23 million to reform the City's Family 
Court and Child and Family Services Agency. It is not an overstatement 
to say the City has on more than a few occasions completely failed its 
children. The District's poor child welfare system has literally left 
some children to die.
  There has been some talk about whether $23 million is enough to 
complete these much-needed reforms. Frankly, I am not sure anymore. I 
do not think the judges nor the lawmakers nor the Congressional Budget 
Office has a really true handle on how much these changes will cost. 
But $23 million is more than an adequate start; and if the judges can 
demonstrate they need more money, I am sure we will work with them to 
address these concerns in the next budget.
  Let me point out just a few of the other budget highlights: $1 
million for an innovative literacy program in D.C. schools; $1.5 
million for job training; $1 million for the expansion of St. 
Colleta's, which does such good work training mentally retarded and 
disabled youngsters and adults; $2 million to promote high-tech 
education at the City's Southeastern University; $300,000 to the newly 
constituted Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, that bill will be 
coming up later today, which will foster cooperation among various 
Federal and local criminal justice agencies that operate in the 
District.
  I must, I must, mention that there are several elements in this bill 
that trouble me deeply. Once again, Congress is intending to ban the 
use of local money for effective programs that the District deems 
appropriate: the needle exchange program, as an example, that has 
proven successful elsewhere, including in Maryland; the use of money, 
the local money even, for abortion as deemed appropriate in the 
District of Columbia; and, again, the prohibition of using any local 
money for domestic partner benefits. I am disappointed that the 
amendment will be allowed to be offered, and I intend to certainly vote 
against it.
  The Committee on Appropriations also has decided to withhold several 
million dollars, some of it earmarked for the very successful and 
popular D.C. Tuition Access Program and the rest intended for fire and 
emergency services and other vital services. It is going to be withheld 
until the District provides Congress with an emergency security plan.
  To be sure, none of us was pleased with the District's lack of 
preparedness that became evident on September 11. The Nation's capital, 
the capital of the free world, must be the most-prepared city when it 
comes to possible terror attacks. However, the Congress ought not, 
ought not, to punish the students and the other citizens of the 
District by withholding funds in this manner.
  So, overall, this is a very good appropriations bill. It achieves 
what Chairman Knollenberg and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who has worked very hard on this bill also, 
what they set out to do at the beginning of the session, something with 
which I agree, giving the District more direct control over its own 
spending, by reducing, if not eliminating, Congressional micro-
management of the budget. We still have a way to go.
  So I would say well done, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and I 
look forward to working with you, the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton), my House and Senate colleagues, Mayor Williams, 
the City Council and all for the revitalization of the Nation's 
Capital.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I, too, take the floor to oppose the 
amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Florida. That 
amendment, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has indicated, 
would reinstate the ban that for the past 9 years has prohibited the 
District of Columbia from providing the most minimal protections to 
citizens who live with their domestic partners; the right to visit a 
partner in the hospital and not to be turned away; the opportunity for 
local government workers to buy health insurance to cover their 
partners at their own expense. And I want to commend the committee for 
at last allowing the District to use its own local funds to implement 
this modest measure.
  Their action is consistent with the atmosphere of tolerance and 
reflection which has characterized our debates since the terrible 
events that occurred on September 11. It has been genuinely 
inspirational to see Americans come together from all parts of our 
national community to mourn, to heal, and to honor our heroes, and yet 
today we have this amendment.

[[Page H5991]]

  Well, one of those heroes was a 31-year-old rugby star from San 
Francisco whose name was Mark Bingham. He was one of the four 
passengers who thwarted the hijackers on United Flight 93 which crashed 
in Pennsylvania, and he was a gay man.
  Well, he was a hero who may very well have prevented that plane from 
destroying this building in which we are now debating. And this is how 
we thank him for his heroism.
  What a disappointing contrast, to the actions of Senator John McCain, 
one of Mr. Bingham's favorite political figures, who flew to San 
Francisco from Washington yesterday to attend his memorial service. Let 
me quote Senator McCain: ``We now believe the terrorists intended to 
crash that plane into the Capitol, where I was that morning. I may very 
well owe my life to Mark Bingham,'' and so may we all here.
  Mr. Bingham had the good fortune to live in one of the 117 
jurisdictions across the country that provide health benefits to 
domestic partners. It is time for Congress to let the people of the 
District of Columbia do the same thing, and may I submit to my 
colleagues, it is time for us to heed the word that is inscribed right 
there in the center of the Clerk's counter, and that word is 
``tolerance.''

                              {time}  1145


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair reminds Members to avoid such quoting of 
Senators.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I would like to make two important points about the debate 
surrounding my amendment. I too, along with my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, have been blessed by the high level of comity and 
good relations we have had since the tremendous tragedy that struck our 
Nation on September 11, and some of my colleagues seem to be implying: 
Why are you bringing this up at this time?
  I just want to point out to everyone involved in this debate that for 
9 years the policy of the Congress has been to not allow this provision 
to move ahead. Indeed, it was originally endorsed by a Republican 
President and a Democratic Congress, and then for 2 years, a Democratic 
President and a Democratic Congress, and then from 1995 on, a 
Democratic President and a Republican Congress. It is actually the 
other side of this debate who brought this issue up on September 18.
  I would agree that this is a somewhat divisive issue, but I would 
just like to point out to my colleagues that I did not bring it up; 
they did. They introduced this issue for debate at this time.
  Now, the other issue I would like to address straight up is there 
have been people who have gotten up and said that this provision would 
allow grandmothers and mothers living together, raising children, or 
persons with disabilities and a live-in care provider, or two sisters 
raising children to be able to get one of the persons in the house to 
be covered. The District of Columbia had the option to write a law that 
would have covered those types of hardship cases; but instead, they 
chose to write a law that was a blanket provision that simply allows 
heterosexuals cohabitating to qualify for this benefit and homosexuals 
cohabitating to qualify for this benefit.
  I, along with previous administrations and previous Congresses, have 
endorsed the policy that simply stated that we do not want to do this, 
and my amendment simply maintains current law, the law for 9 years.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), a member of the full committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise to defend the committee position 
and this very excellent bill that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member, are presenting to the 
floor. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules decided to put a very 
unfortunate amendment in, and I was very pleased to join the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full 
Committee on Appropriations, in opposing that rule in a recorded vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor on this issue as one with some 
family involvement. My father was Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations in the 1940s. 
How proud he would be of the leadership of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and that of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg). He was a great advocate for home rule, and that was part 
of his legacy as a Member of Congress and later as the Mayor of 
Baltimore, the pride he took in that, and the recognition that we must 
respect the opinions of localities.
  The Congress should be supporting the decisions that local 
communities make about their health care. We respect the importance of 
local control, and interference with the District of Columbia is 
contradictory to that goal. No citizen should be denied the right to 
care for an ailing partner or visit them in the hospital. No citizen 
should be prevented from taking the bereavement leave necessary to make 
funeral arrangements when his or her partner has passed away. All 
citizens should have access to quality health care. Over 4,200 
employers across the country, including one-third of the Fortune 500, 
have recognized this by establishing domestic partnership health 
programs. Many of these programs go much, much farther than this law.
  Cities as diverse as Atlanta, Albany, Chicago, New Orleans, and 
Scottsdale all have domestic partnership benefits in place that are 
much more comprehensive than the D.C. law. Would any of the Members who 
represent those districts or the States that they are in like funds 
withheld from their appropriations their States would receive?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Weldon amendment 
when it comes up, and I again thank the ranking member for this good 
bill; and I urge my colleagues to support the committee position and 
oppose the Weldon amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania for the fine job that they have done on this bill. We 
have heard it from many people, but I think these plaudits are really 
due here for a very good job that they have done on this bill.
  I am rising to speak at this point because the time on the amendment 
that will be coming up later offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon) is very limited; and I want to give just a little bit of 
background, although it has already been covered to some extent. I do 
hope my colleagues will, when the time comes, oppose the Weldon 
amendment.
  By way of background, the District has had a health benefits law for 
domestic partners since 1992. We have heard it said here today, 113, 
117 other jurisdictions around the country also have a similar 
provision, so this is hardly anything that is new or different. In 
fact, the District of Columbia provision is much, much more limited 
than that offered by most other governmental units. It would allow a 
partner, and it can be, as the gentleman from Florida noted, a 
grandmother and a mother together raising a child; it could be a 
disabled person with a care giver; it could be two heterosexual people 
living together; it could be a lesbian or gay couple living together, 
it allows the one of them who is employed by the District of Columbia 
to sign the other up for health benefits. I want to emphasize, this 
benefit is entirely, entirely, at the expense of the individual. No 
Federal or District of funds are used to subsidize the premiums for the 
domestic partner.
  Now, for the last 9 years, Congress has blocked that D.C. statute 
from being implemented. But as we have heard on the floor this morning, 
the state of the District is different from nine years earlier. The 
Control Board is about to expire. We have confidence

[[Page H5992]]

in the local government. Now, if we are going to demonstrate that 
confidence, is this not a good place to start, by lifting this 
particular ban and saying to the District of Columbia that along with 
113 other jurisdictions around the country, you can make these 
decisions about who among your employees can have health benefits? This 
is the time to lift this prohibition.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to start bringing our country together. We 
should be uniting our country; we should be bringing people together. 
We do not need this kind of mean-spirited amendment that is being 
offered here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject the Weldon amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
and the chairman of the subcommittee for a very excellent 
appropriations bill that recognizes how much we cherish our capital and 
its people, and particularly in this time. Let me thank them for 
providing the funds for the emergency security plan, and for the $23 
million that helps the family court to protect abused children. Many 
good things. Let me acknowledge former Chairman Dixon for his 
leadership.
  However, I must stand in opposition to the Weldon amendment. I would 
just say to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend, there were 
words that he said that particularly struck me as a reason to oppose 
this amendment. What he said was the District of Columbia chose to 
draft this domestic partnership legislation as it did. The Mayor, the 
city council, the citizens chose to make a determination to protect all 
of its citizens within its boundaries, provide all of them with good 
health care to allow them, no matter what their sexual orientation, to 
be respected and to alleviate the problem of these individuals trying 
to be on public assistance. We have already heard about 4,500 
corporations and 117 jurisdictions. How would we like to violate, as a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the constitutional provisions 
of local and Federal jurisdiction?
  Mr. Chairman, we are now here disregarding freedom and justice, right 
here in this Congress today, after we have united this country around 
freedom and justice, by denying the District of Columbia its right to 
promote its domestic partnership act for good health care under its own 
local funding.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose the Weldon amendment. Let us promote 
the unity that we promoted in this country. Let us respect the District 
of Columbia. Let us cherish our capital, and let us cherish freedom and 
justice for all of the people, no matter what their beliefs. Whatever 
their beliefs may be and however they stand, whatever their sexual 
orientation, it is our right to protect their freedom and to protect 
justice.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Weldon amendment, 
since others are criticizing it. I must admit that I am a little 
embarrassed that some have decided to use this bill and this era of 
bipartisanship to advance the gay agenda.
  This Congress and the vast majority of the American people believe 
that marriage is a sacred union between a woman and a man. This is not 
a radical concept. No culture in the history of the world has ever 
thought otherwise. There is no serious religion anywhere in the world 
that believes otherwise.
  I oppose using government funds to promote gay partnerships because I 
have tremendous respect for the families of this country. I oppose 
using funds in that way because I believe that every child in this 
country deserves a chance of life with a mother and a father.
  Mr. Chairman, I know there are a few vocal voices who will disagree. 
But the violence of our country that we just suffered requires our 
unity. We should not be talking about this divisive issue now and 
trying to move the gay agenda. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Weldon amendment so that we can get on with the real business facing 
our country.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to remind us of the hatred that brought about the incident of 2 weeks 
ago. We heard the statements of Jerry Falwell attacking certain 
Americans as being ``responsible.'' We need to pull together.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
(Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with the comments 
of some of my colleagues commending the Committee on Appropriations and 
subcommittee process that resulted in this bill. Nevertheless, I rise 
in strong opposition to the Weldon amendment.
  At a time when 43 million people in our country lack health care 
coverage, this amendment would maintain barriers for certain citizens 
of our capital city to obtain health insurance. This amendment would 
prohibit the implementation of the District's plan to extend health 
care coverage to domestic partners of city employees with its own local 
funds.
  This amendment stands as the only barrier between affordable health 
care for countless families of city employees. This amendment could 
mean the difference between a person having a sensible health care plan 
or no plan at all. It could mean the difference between wellness and 
illness for the families of city employees.
  I implore my colleagues, do not continue to overrule the democratic 
process that brought this benefit in the first place. The people of 
this city have spoken, and they have made it clear that health care 
coverage for domestic partners is wanted and absolutely needed. This 
amendment is a slap in the face, both to the citizens and the leaders 
of this city.
  I can only imagine the uproar that would occur if this House sought 
to directly overturn the municipal law of any other city in this 
Nation. Let the democratic process stand. Let the District leadership 
do their job. Let the District spend its own money. Vote ``no'' on the 
Weldon amendment, and let the District implement a health care benefit 
plan for domestic partners and their families for city employees.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill 
and the Weldon amendment. During this debate, as in years past, we have 
heard that Congress should not impose its will on the District of 
Columbia regarding its so-called domestic partnership law.

                              {time}  1200

  We have been told that it is a matter of home rule, and we have been 
lectured that Federal interference is both unwarranted and 
unconscionable.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues of the oath they took to 
uphold the United States Constitution. I would remind them that article 
1, section 8 of that great document states that ``Congress shall have 
the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever 
over the District.''
  The District of Columbia was established as a unique entity. In order 
to prevent any one State from exercising undue influence over the 
Capital city, the Founders wisely created a Federal district that would 
belong to the whole Nation. As such, the District of Columbia should be 
a reflection of the values shared by the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, regardless of which party has been in power, Congress 
has consistently prohibited both Federal and District of Columbia tax 
dollars from being spent on the District's domestic partnership law. I 
urge my colleagues to remember their constitutional obligations and to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania who got off 
the floor invoked religion as a reason to support the amendment that 
would prevent the District of Columbia's democratically-elected 
decision on domestic partnership from going into effect, and I know 
there are religious views of this sort. We have heard them expressed 
recently in various ways. Indeed, my guess is one could quote from

[[Page H5993]]

the Taliban at great length about how terrible all of this is.
  But the question is not what people in their own individual religious 
views think, but what a self-governing people in the District of 
Columbia, self-governing thanks to our grant, but it is a grant that I 
am proud that we made, should be allowed to go forward.
  I now want to talk a little bit about the substance. Here is what we 
are talking about. It used to be illegal in the District of Columbia 
for two people of the same sex to express their affection physically. 
That was illegal, physical intimacy. The District of Columbia repealed 
that, and to its credit, this Congress allowed that repeal to stand. So 
understand that according to this Congress, only recently, a few years 
ago, we allowed the physical expression of intimacy.
  So the question now is, do we then follow it up by saying to the 
people, okay, they can live together and can express their love in a 
physical way, but by God, if they try to show responsibility, if they 
try to show that financially they are going to be responsible for each 
other, if they try to couple their emotional and physical sense with 
some degree of commitment, we are not going to allow it; because what 
we are talking about here are two people, one of whom works for the 
District of Columbia and one of whom does not, one of whom has health 
insurance and one of whom does not.
  So do not think Members are banning people's ability to live 
together. We are beyond that. This Congress has said the District could 
make that decision. The question is, once the people live together, do 
they think it makes sense to say that the person who is working and 
wants to jointly pay for health insurance cannot do it?
  What Members are talking about, let us be very clear, there are 
people whose lives they do not like, and I am one of those, and I 
regret that, but I must admit I am far beyond losing sleep about what 
the Taliban or anybody else thinks about the way I live.
  But what I assert is my right to live that way equally and freely as 
an American, and I implore my colleagues, what motivates them to 
inflict pain on fellow citizens who have done them no wrong? They just 
want to live. Can they not let them live?
  Our government is about to say that, in times of crisis, they can die 
for their country, because we are going to put a temporary cessation to 
the ``gays in the military'' policy. Let people live and let them die 
freely.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, who can always be so very 
eloquent on this issue and on so many others.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill, but I do want 
to state my very strong opposition to the effort expected here shortly 
on this floor to prevent the people of D.C. from spending their local 
tax dollars, which is nearly 95 percent of the whole budget that we are 
talking about, for the city, for the District of Columbia, to spend 
that money as they see fit: namely, to implement a 1992 District law 
that provides health plan benefits to unmarried domestic partners of 
city employees, regardless of gender.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of Washington, like all Americans, have had 
a long 2 weeks. It is appalling to me that we are now considering what 
can only be described as a slap in the face to the people of D.C. and 
their elected officials. Washington, D.C. should have the right to 
grant domestic partner benefits with their own local tax dollars.
  This issue is not new. Across this country, at least 113 local 
jurisdictions over the length and breadth of the country, from large 
cities like San Diego to small towns, like Bar Harbor in Maine, offer 
similar benefits and rights for the domestic partners of local 
residents. It is clearly not unusual and is clearly a matter of home 
rule, or should be a matter of home rule. What is unusual is the effort 
to insert the heavy hand of the Federal Government in this local 
municipal issue.
  After the tragic events of September 11, average Americans are 
feeling a renewed desire to participate and contribute to this great 
democracy. Let us not ridicule their efforts with gratuitous, mean-
spirited riders. I urge Members to vote against that amendment when it 
comes up.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for 
yielding time to me. I commend him for his leadership as chairman of 
this subcommittee, and their staff for the excellent work they have 
done in reviewing the D.C. budget this year and in bringing this bill 
to the floor in a timely manner.
  Mr. Chairman, with the assistance of the Control Board, the Citizen 
Council, and the mayor, the District of Columbia has made tremendous 
progress in overcoming the spending and management crisis that drove it 
to the verge of bankruptcy in 1995.
  After four consecutive balanced budgets, Congress restored the 
mayor's management authority over nine major departments. Now the city 
is well on its way to a full recovery. This budget not only maintains 
the momentum of the management stability and reform, it will also allow 
the city to implement much needed social service reforms.
  Legislation recently passed the House that will implement structural 
and management reforms in the D.C. Family Court so it can better serve 
the needs of the city's most vulnerable children. It addresses the 
recruitment and retention of Family Court judges, mandates longer 
judicial terms of service in the Family Court, and imposes the 
critically important one family-one judge requirement on the Family 
Court.
  As an original cosponsor of that legislation, I am pleased that the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia in the Committee on 
Appropriations, under the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Chairman Knollenberg), has ensured that more than $23 million will be 
provided for these critical reforms.
  The bill also provides $17 million to maintain the D.C. tuition 
assistance program. Since its inception, this program has grown in 
popularity among D.C. students and participating colleges and 
universities. This funding is imperative to ensure that D.C. students 
have more educational choices, and have the same opportunities for 
higher education that those students in the rest of the country have.
  The bill provides $5 million to help the D.C. Child and Family 
Services Agency promote and facilitate adoptions of D.C. children in 
the city's foster care system.
  Sixteen million dollars is provided for security planning that is 
vital to the city, particularly in the wake of the September 11 
terrorist attacks.
  Overall, Mr. Chairman, this is a budget that keeps the Nation's 
Capitol moving forward and addresses some of its most pressing needs. 
Once again, I applaud the chairman for his leadership, commend the 
subcommittee for its bipartisan cooperation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Weldon amendment against 
allowing the District of Columbia to endorse the controversial domestic 
partnership. Without this amendment, the District of Columbia will be 
able to recognize domestic partnerships, to offer domestic partners 
benefits to the city employees, and encourage businesses in the 
District to do the same.
  The requirements of domestic partnership are simply mutual caring and 
sharing of experience. No long-term commitment is required. Congress 
oversees D.C. law, and American taxpayers provide roughly one-third of 
its budget. I could not, in good conscience, commit the taxpayers in my 
district to subsidize benefits for domestic partners. It is our duty to 
uphold the traditional marriage and to stop this misguided law, as we 
have for the past 9 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Weldon amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would read, in part, a statement from the ranking 
member

[[Page H5994]]

of the full committee. This is from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  ``In full committee, Chairman Young and I presented an amendment to 
redirect $13 million in Federal funds to help the District prepare and 
begin to implement a revised emergency operations plan.''
  It was first thought, and I am paraphrasing, that there was no plan 
available. It later it became obvious that the District was not 
prepared. It submitted a plan to the committee, and the ranking member 
goes on to say, however, that this plan needs serious revision.
  He said, ``I trust this bill provides adequate resources to do a 
careful and complete revision of the Emergency Operations Plan, fully 
coordinated with other entities in the District, like the U.S. Capitol 
Police, the Federal Office of Personnel Management,'' and other local 
governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the full remarks of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Knollenberg has done a good job with 
this bill, and I thank him.
  He has approved the overall budget for the use of local funds, 
judiciously used the Federal allocation to fund required services and 
boost several local initiatives, cut back the number of general 
provisions, and worked with Mr. Fattah, the ranking member, to restore 
a lot of the District's specific spending plans.
  In full Committee, Chairman Young and I presented an amendment to 
redirect $13 million in Federal funds to help the District prepare and 
begin to implement a revised Emergency Operations Plan.
  In the aftermath of September 11th, it became apparent that many 
government entities--Federal, state and local--were not prepared for 
the new reality.
  In the District, the Police said there was no plan. The fire 
department said it had a plan--but it was over thirty years old. The 
Federal government never told the city it was sending its workers home 
for the day--the District had to learn that from the press.
  So we took this opportunity to help the District make certain that it 
had an excellent, coordinated Emergency Operations Plan.
  The bill withholds about $8 million in unrelated Federal funds until 
the plan is done to make the point that this was a very serious matter.
  Those other funds are not needed right away; this will not have any 
immediate impact on the District or its citizens.
  Now, it turns out the district does have an emergency operations 
plan, but it is clear it has some very serious problems.
  These problems cannot be addressed by a hasty revision.
  I trust this bill provides adequate resources to do a careful and 
complete revision of the Emergency Operations Plan, fully coordinated 
with other entities in the District, like the U.S. Capitol Police, the 
Federal Office of Personnel Management and other local governments.
  The District should not rush through the process of developing its 
Emergency Operations Plan--it owes its citizens and the nation the best 
product possible.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said in particular about the 
Weldon amendment that we expect to hear from. I want to return, 
however, to compliment the chairman for the full body of work that is 
represented in the committee's efforts. I would hope that the committee 
bill will survive the day's attempts to amend it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would now say in terms of the expected amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), I am reminded of 
the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm. Obviously, if we were to pass 
the Weldon amendment, we are preventing an opportunity for citizens in 
the District to have health insurance. That is not something we should 
do, especially when they are going to pay for it with their own money.
  Absent doing that, these people will have to be paid for through 
Federal resources in terms of their health care. So that the gentleman 
who just spoke is worried that he could not, in good conscience, have 
his citizens provide resources for this, but by supporting the Weldon 
amendment, we would, in a direct way, require that Federal resources 
through Medicaid have to be expended for the health care of these 
citizens who would have paid for, absent the Weldon amendment, health 
care under their own resources.
  Mr. Chairman, we heard the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt) refer to one of the heroes that saved the plane from crashing 
perhaps into the Capitol, who happened to be a gay person, but 
nonetheless, and maybe even because of, he felt a need to stand up and 
to do what was right.
  I would hope that this House would do what is right and defeat the 
Weldon amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, I would like to thank all Members of Congress who took 
such an active interest in the District of Columbia appropriations bill 
this year. The subcommittee received an unprecedented number of 
requests from Members, which I think shows, as much as anything, how 
committed they are in this body to our Nation's Capital, and how far 
this city has come in the last 6 years.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a good, bipartisan bill that 
reflects the priorities I set when I first became chairman, that being 
economic development, public safety, and education.
  As was mentioned, this fully funds every penny of the city's budget, 
and it ensures that all Federal obligations are met. I want to 
reemphasize, as has been attested to here, that we have eliminated more 
than half of the general provisions that were included in last year's 
bill and by our manager's amendment that was included in our rule, we 
have shown our commitment to addressing any remaining concerns with the 
bill.
  I intend certainly to do that with the various participants, 
including the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), obviously, and 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  My first year as chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations has been a very positive 
experience for me. I began to meet the leadership of the city, I began 
to meet the people in the city, and I got an understanding from them as 
to what was on their minds. Their input has been invaluable to me in 
crafting this bill.
  I might also say that the residents have been very kind to me.

                              {time}  1215

  I look forward now to wrapping up this year's bill as quickly as 
possible, and I hope our colleagues in the other body will 
expeditiously consider their version of this legislation so we can get 
it to the President's desk and the District of Columbia can go about 
its business.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman I rise in favor of H.R. 2944, which provides 
appropriations for the District of Columbia. As modified by the rule, 
this bill is consistent with the budget resolution and complies with 
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  H.R. 2944 provides $402 million in budget authority and $409 million 
in outlays for fiscal year 2002. As reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations, the bill exceeds the subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia's 302(b) allocation of new budget authority by $3 million. 
Accordingly, the original reported bill violates section 302(f) of the 
budget, which stipulates that appropriations bills may not exceed the 
reporting subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.
  I understand the overage was caused by an amendment in committee, 
which permitted revenue collected from the sale of surplus property 
associated with the Lorton correctional facility in Virginia to be made 
available for use by the District.
  The appropriations committee has, to its credit, requested a self-
executing rule that will bring the bill back within its 302(b) 
allocation. Accordingly, the bill as modified by the rule is consistent 
with the budget resolution and complies with the Congressional Budget 
Act.
  H.R. 2944 contains no emergency-designated appropriations, advanced 
appropriations, or rescissions of previously appropriated budget 
authority.
  As reported, the bill provides $44 million less in new budget 
authority than the enacted level for fiscal year 2001 but exceeds the 
President's request for fiscal year 2002 by $60 million.
  I commend my colleagues on the appropriations committee for producing 
a bill that meets the needs of the District of Columbia within the 
framework of the budget resolution.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back any time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule, and the amendments printed in part A of House 
Report 107-217 are adopted.
  The amendment printed in part B of the report may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report and

[[Page H5995]]

 only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be 
considered read, debatable for the time specified in the report, 
equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2944

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of 
     Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

                             FEDERAL FUNDS

              Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for a 
     nationwide program, to be administered by the Mayor, for 
     District of Columbia resident tuition support, $17,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That such funds 
     may be used on behalf of eligible District of Columbia 
     residents to pay an amount based upon the difference between 
     in-State and out-of-State tuition at public institutions of 
     higher education, usable at both public and private 
     institutions for higher education: Provided further, That the 
     awarding of such funds may be prioritized on the basis of a 
     resident's academic merit and such other factors as may be 
     authorized: Provided further, That not more than 7 percent of 
     the total amount appropriated for this program may be used 
     for administrative expenses.

        Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children

       The paragraph under the heading ``Federal Payment for 
     Incentives for Adoption of Children'' in Public Law 106-113, 
     approved November 29, 1999 (113 Stat. 1501), is amended to 
     read as follows: ``For a Federal payment to the District of 
     Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of 
     children in the District of Columbia foster care system, 
     $5,000,000: Provided, That such funds shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2003, and shall be used to carry out all 
     of the provisions of title 38 of the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget 
     Support Act of 2000, effective October 19, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-
     172), as amended, except for section 3808.''.

Federal Payment to the Capitol City Career Development and Job Training 
                              Partnership

       For a Federal Payment to the Capitol City Career 
     Development and Job Training Partnership, $1,500,000.

 Federal Payment to the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department

       For a Federal payment to the Fire and Emergency Medical 
     Services Department, $500,000 for dry-docking of the Fire 
     Boat.

             Federal Payment to the Chief Medical Examiner

       For a Federal payment to the Chief Medical Examiner, 
     $585,000 for reduction in the backlog of autopsies, case 
     reports and for the purchase of toxicology and histology 
     equipment.

              Federal Payment to the Youth Life Foundation

       For a Federal payment to the Youth Life Foundation, 
     $250,000 for technical assistance, operational expenses, and 
     establishment of a National Training Institute.

                  Federal Payment to Food and Friends

       For a Federal payment to Food and Friends, $2,000,000 for 
     their Capital Campaign.

               Federal Payment to the City Administrator

       For a Federal payment to the City Administrator, $300,000 
     for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the 
     District of Columbia.

               Federal Payment to Southeastern University

       For a Federal payment to Southeastern University, $500,000 
     for a public/private partnership with the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools at the McKinley Technology High 
     School campus.

         Federal Payment for Voyager Universal Literacy System

       For a Federal payment to Voyager Expanded Learning, to 
     implement the Voyager Universal Literacy System in the 
     District of Columbia public schools and public charter 
     schools, $1,000,000: Provided, That the payment under this 
     heading is contingent upon a certification by the Inspector 
     General of the District of Columbia that the District of 
     Columbia has deposited matching funds to implement such 
     System into an escrow account held by the Chief Financial 
     Officer of the District of Columbia.

     Federal Payment to the Office of the Chief Technology Officer

       For a Federal payment to the Chief Technology Officer of 
     the District of Columbia to carry out the Local-Federal 
     Mobile Wireless Interoperability Demonstration Project, 
     $500,000: Provided, That the payment under this heading is 
     contingent upon a certification by the Inspector General of 
     the District of Columbia that each entity of the Federal 
     Government which is participating in such Project has 
     deposited matching funds to carry out the Project into an 
     escrow account held by the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia.

                 Federal Payment for Emergency Planning

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for 
     emergency planning, $16,058,000: Provided, That $4,623,000 of 
     such amount shall be made available immediately for 
     development of an emergency operations plan for the District 
     of Columbia, to be submitted to the appropriate Federal 
     agencies as soon as practicable: Provided further, That upon 
     submission of such plan, $8,029,000 of such amount shall be 
     made available to begin implementation of the plan: Provided 
     further, That $3,406,000 of such amount shall be made 
     available immediately for reimbursement of planning and 
     related expenses incurred by the District of Columbia in 
     anticipation of providing security for the planned meetings 
     in September 2001 of the World Bank and the International 
     Monetary Fund in the District of Columbia: Provided further, 
     That one-half of the amounts under the headings ``Federal 
     Payment for Resident Tuition Support'', ``Federal Payment to 
     the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department'', 
     ``Federal Payment to the Chief Medical Examiner'', and 
     ``Federal Payment to the City Administrator'', shall not be 
     made available until the emergency operations plan has been 
     submitted to the appropriate Federal agencies in accordance 
     with the preceding proviso: Provided further, That the Chief 
     Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall provide 
     quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations on the 
     use of the funds under this heading, beginning not later than 
     January 2, 2002.

   Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the District of 
                                Columbia

       For a Federal payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia, $2,350,000, of which $1,000,000 shall 
     be for payment to the Excel Institute Adult Education Program 
     to be used by the Institute for construction and to acquire 
     construction services provided by the General Services 
     Administration on a reimbursable basis; $300,000 shall be for 
     payment to the Woodlawn Cemetery for restoration of the 
     Cemetery; $250,000 shall be for payment to the Real World 
     Schools concerning 21st Century reform models for secondary 
     education and the use of technology to support learning in 
     the District of Columbia; $300,000 shall be for payment to a 
     mentoring program and for hotline services; $250,000 shall be 
     for payment to a youth development program with a character 
     building curriculum; and $250,000 shall be for payment to a 
     basic values training program.

    Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee 
                               Operations

       For salaries and expenses of the District of Columbia 
     Corrections Trustee, $32,700,000 for the administration and 
     operation of correctional facilities and for the 
     administrative operating costs of the Office of the 
     Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the 
     National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
     Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) of 
     which $1,000,000 is to fund an initiative to improve case 
     processing in the District of Columbia criminal justice 
     system, $2,500,000 to remain available until September 30, 
     2003, for building renovations required to accommodate 
     functions transferred from the Lorton Correctional Complex, 
     and $2,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2003, 
     to be transferred to the appropriate agency for the closing 
     of the sewage treatment plant and the removal of underground 
     storage tanks at the Lorton Correctional Complex: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the District of Columbia 
     Corrections Trustee shall be apportioned quarterly by the 
     Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in 
     the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and 
     expenses of other Federal agencies.

           Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts

       For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia 
     Courts, $111,238,000, to be allocated as follows: for the 
     District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $8,003,000, of which 
     not to exceed $1,500 is for official reception and 
     representation expenses; for the District of Columbia 
     Superior Court, $66,091,000, of which not to exceed $1,500 is 
     for official reception and representation expenses; for the 
     District of Columbia Court System, $31,149,000, of which not 
     to exceed $1,500 is for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and $5,995,000 to remain available until September 
     30, 2003, for capital improvements for District of Columbia 
     courthouse facilities: Provided, That none of the funds in 
     this Act or in any other Act shall be available for the 
     purchase, installation or operation of an Integrated Justice 
     Information System until a detailed plan and design has been 
     submitted by the courts and approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, all amounts under this heading shall be

[[Page H5996]]

     apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget 
     and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds 
     appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal 
     agencies, with payroll and financial services to be provided 
     on a contractual basis with the General Services 
     Administration (GSA), said services to include the 
     preparation of monthly financial reports, copies of which 
     shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President and to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House 
     of Representatives.

                  Federal Payment for Family Court Act

       For carrying out the District of Columbia Family Court Act 
     of 2001, $23,316,000, of which $18,316,000 shall be for the 
     Superior Court of the District of Columbia and $5,000,000 
     shall be for the Mayor of the District of Columbia: Provided, 
     That the chief judge of the Superior Court shall submit the 
     transition plan for the Family Court of the Superior Court 
     required under section 2(b)(1) of the District of Columbia 
     Family Court Act of 2001 to the Comptroller General (in 
     addition to any other requirements under such section): 
     Provided further, That the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to the President and Congress an analysis of the 
     contents and effectiveness of the plan, including an analysis 
     of whether the plan contains all of the information required 
     under such section: Provided further, That the funds provided 
     under this heading to the Superior Court shall not be made 
     available until the expiration of the 30-day period 
     (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, legal public holidays, and any 
     day on which neither House of Congress is in session because 
     of an adjournment sine die, a recess of more that three days, 
     or an adjournment of more than three days) which begins on 
     the date the Comptroller General submits such analysis to the 
     President and Congress: Provided further, That the Mayor 
     shall prepare and submit to the President, Congress, and the 
     Comptroller General a plan for the use of the funds provided 
     to the Mayor under this heading, consistent with the 
     requirements of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 
     2001, including the requirement to integrate the computer 
     systems of the District government with the computer systems 
     of the Superior Court: Provided further, That the Comptroller 
     General shall prepare and submit to the President and 
     Congress an analysis of the contents and effectiveness of the 
     plan: Provided further, That the funds provided under this 
     heading to the Mayor shall not be made available until the 
     expiration of the 30-day period (excluding Saturdays, 
     Sundays, legal public holidays, and any day on which neither 
     House of Congress is in session because of an adjournment 
     sine die, a recess of more than three days, or an adjournment 
     of more than three days) which begins on the date the 
     Comptroller General submits such plan to the President and 
     Congress.

            Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts

       For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section 
     11-2605, D.C. Official Code (relating to representation 
     provided under the District of Columbia Criminal Justice 
     Act), payments for counsel appointed in proceedings in the 
     Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of 
     Columbia under chapter 23 of title 16, D.C. Official Code, 
     and payments for counsel authorized under section 21-2060, 
     D.C. Official Code (relating to representation provided under 
     the District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective 
     Proceedings, and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986), 
     $34,311,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts'' (other 
     than the $5,995,000 provided under such heading for capital 
     improvements for District of Columbia courthouse facilities) 
     may also be used for payments under this heading: Provided 
     further, That, in addition to the funds provided under this 
     heading, the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in 
     the District of Columbia shall use funds provided in this Act 
     under the heading ``Federal Payment to the District of 
     Columbia Courts'' (other than the $5,995,000 provided under 
     such heading for capital improvements for District of 
     Columbia courthouse facilities), to make payments described 
     under this heading for obligations incurred during any fiscal 
     year: Provided further, That such funds shall be administered 
     by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the 
     District of Columbia: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, this appropriation shall be 
     apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget 
     and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds 
     appropriated for expenses of other Federal agencies, with 
     payroll and financial services to be provided on a 
     contractual basis with the General Services Administration 
     (GSA), said services to include the preparation of monthly 
     financial reports, copies of which shall be submitted 
     directly by GSA to the President and to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives.

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


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For salaries and expenses, including the transfer and hire 
     of motor vehicles, of the Court Services and Offender 
     Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, as 
     authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
     Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 
     Stat. 712), $147,300,000, of which $13,015,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for construction project; not to 
     exceed $1,500 is for official receptions related to offender 
     and defendant support programs; $94,112,000 shall be for 
     necessary expenses of Community Supervision and Sex Offender 
     Registration, to include expenses relating to supervision of 
     adults subject to protection orders or provision of services 
     for or related to such persons; $20,829,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Public Defender Service; and $32,359,000 
     shall be available to the Pretrial Services Agency: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts 
     under this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the 
     Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in 
     the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and 
     expenses of other Federal agencies: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding chapter 12 of title 40, United States Code, 
     the Director may acquire by purchase, lease, condemnation, or 
     donation, and renovate as necessary, Building Number 17, 1900 
     Massachusetts Avenue, Southeast Washington, District of 
     Columbia, to house or supervise offenders and defendants, 
     with funds made available by this Act: Provided further, That 
     the Director is authorized to accept and use gifts in the 
     form of in-kind contributions of space and hospitality to 
     support offender and defendant programs, and equipment and 
     vocational training services to educate and train offenders 
     and defendants: Provided further, That the Director shall 
     keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance and use 
     of any gift or donation under the previous proviso, and shall 
     make such records available for audit and public inspection.

                   Children's National Medical Center

       For a Federal contribution to the Children's National 
     Medical Center in the District of Columbia, $5,500,000, of 
     which $500,000 shall be used for the network of satellite 
     pediatric health clinics for children and families in 
     underserved neighborhoods and communities in the District of 
     Columbia and $5,000,000 shall be used to modernize the 
     Children's National Medical Center and update its medical 
     equipment.

          St. Coletta of Greater Washington Expansion Project

       For a Federal contribution to St. Coletta of Greater 
     Washington, Inc. for costs associated with the establishment 
     of a day program and comprehensive case management services 
     for mentally retarded and multiple-handicapped adolescents 
     and adults in the District of Columbia, including property 
     acquisition and construction, $1,000,000.

            Federal Payment to Faith and Politics Institute

       For a Federal payment to the Faith and Politics Institute, 
     $50,000, for grass roots-based racial sensitivity programs in 
     the District of Columbia.

               Federal Payment for Brownfield Remediation

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the funds made 
     available in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
     2001 (Public Law 106-522; 114 Stat. 2445), for Brownfield 
     Remediation shall be available until expended.

                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

                          Division of Expenses

       The following amounts are appropriated for the District of 
     Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund 
     of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, except as provided in section 450A of the District 
     of Columbia Home Rule Act and section 119 of this Act 
     (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.50a), 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act for operating 
     expenses for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2002 
     under this heading shall not exceed the lesser of the sum 
     of the total revenues of the District of Columbia for such 
     fiscal year or $6,043,881,000 (of which $124,163,000 shall 
     be from intra-District funds and $3,571,343,000 shall be 
     from local funds): Provided further, That the Chief 
     Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall take 
     such steps as are necessary to assure that the District of 
     Columbia meets these requirements, including the 
     apportioning by the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     appropriations and funds made available to the District 
     during fiscal year 2002, except that the Chief Financial 
     Officer may not reprogram for operating expenses any funds 
     derived from bonds, notes, or other obligations issued for 
     capital projects.

                   Governmental Direction and Support

       Governmental direction and support, $285,359,000 (including 
     $229,271,000 from local funds, $38,809,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $17,279,000 from other funds): Provided, That not 
     to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the 
     City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation 
     for official purposes: Provided further, That any program 
     fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available 
     for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of 
     the District of Columbia:

[[Page H5997]]

     Provided further, That no revenues from Federal sources shall 
     be used to support the operations or activities of the 
     Statehood Commission and Statehood Compact Commission: 
     Provided further, That the District of Columbia shall 
     identify the sources of funding for Admission to Statehood 
     from its own locally-generated revenues: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's 
     Order 86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Office of the Chief 
     Technology Officer's delegated small purchase authority shall 
     be $500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     government may not require the Office of the Chief Technology 
     Officer to submit to any other procurement review process, or 
     to obtain the approval of or be restricted in any manner by 
     any official or employee of the District of Columbia 
     government, for purchases that do not exceed $500,000: 
     Provided further, That not less than $353,000 shall be 
     available to the Office of the Corporation Counsel to support 
     increases in the Attorney Retention Allowance: Provided 
     further, That not less than $50,000 shall be available to 
     support a mediation services program within the Office of the 
     Corporation Counsel; Provided further, That not less than 
     $50,000 shall be available to support a TANF Unit within the 
     Child Support Enforcement Division of the Office of the 
     Corporation Counsel.

                  Economic Development and Regulation

       Economic development and regulation, $230,878,000 
     (including $60,786,000 from local funds, $96,199,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $73,893,000 from other funds), of which 
     $15,000,000 collected by the District of Columbia in the form 
     of BID tax revenue shall be paid to the respective BIDs 
     pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996 
     (D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Official Code, sec. 2-1215.01 et 
     seq.), and the Business Improvement Districts Amendment Act 
     of 1997 (D.C. Law 12-26; D.C. Official Code, sec 2-
     1215.15(l)(2)): Provided, That such funds are available for 
     acquiring services provided by the General Services 
     Administration: Provided further, That Business Improvement 
     Districts shall be exempt from taxes levied by the District 
     of Columbia: Provided further, That the fees established and 
     collected pursuant to D.C. Law 13-281 shall be identified, 
     and an accounting provided, to the District of Columbia 
     Council's Committee on Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.

                       Public Safety and Justice

       Public safety and justice, $633,853,000 (including 
     $594,803,000 from local funds, $8,298,000 from Federal funds, 
     and $30,752,000 from other funds): Provided, That not to 
     exceed $500,000 shall be available from this appropriation 
     for the Chief of Police for the prevention and detection of 
     crime: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other law, 
     section 3703 of title XXXVII of the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget 
     Support Act of 2001 (D.C. Bill 14-144), adopted by the 
     Council of the District of Columbia, is enacted into law: 
     Provided further, That the Mayor shall reimburse the District 
     of Columbia National Guard for expenses incurred in 
     connection with services that are performed in emergencies by 
     the National Guard in a militia status and are requested by 
     the Mayor, in amounts that shall be jointly determined and 
     certified as due and payable for these services by the Mayor 
     and the Commanding General of the District of Columbia 
     National Guard: Provided further, That such sums as may be 
     necessary for reimbursement to the District of Columbia 
     National Guard under the preceding proviso shall be available 
     from this appropriation, and the availability of the sums 
     shall be deemed as constituting payment in advance for 
     emergency services involved: Provided further, That no less 
     than $173,000,000 shall be available to the Metropolitan 
     Police Department for salary in support of 3,800 sworn 
     officers: Provided further, That no less than $100,000 shall 
     be available in the Department of Corrections budget to 
     support the Corrections Information Council: Provided 
     further, That not less than $296,000 shall be available to 
     support the Child Fatality Review Committee.

                        Public Education System

       Public education system, including the development of 
     national defense education programs, $1,106,165,000 
     (including $894,494,000 from local funds, $185,044,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $26,627,000 from other funds), to be 
     allocated as follows: $810,542,000 (including $658,624,000 
     from local funds, $144,630,000 from Federal funds, and 
     $7,288,000 from other funds), for the public schools of the 
     District of Columbia; $47,370,000 (including $19,911,000 from 
     local funds of which $17,000,000 is from a Federal payment 
     previously appropriated in this Act for resident tuition 
     support at public and private institutions of higher learning 
     for eligible District of Columbia residents, $26,917,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $542,000 from other funds), for the State 
     Education Office, and $142,257,000 from local funds for 
     public charter schools: Provided, That there shall be 
     quarterly disbursement of funds to the District of Columbia 
     public charter schools, with the first payment to occur 
     within 15 days of the beginning of each fiscal year: Provided 
     further, That if the entirety of this allocation has not been 
     provided as payments to any public charter school currently 
     in operation through the per pupil funding formula, the funds 
     shall be available for public education in accordance with 
     the School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; D.C. 
     Official Code, sec. 38-1804.03(a)(2)(D): Provided further, 
     That $480,000 of this amount shall be available to the 
     District of Columbia Public Charter School Board for 
     administrative costs: Provided further, That $76,542,000 
     (including $45,912,000 from local funds, $12,539,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $18,091,000 from other funds) shall be 
     available for the University of the District of Columbia: 
     Provided further, That $750,000 shall be available for 
     Enhancing and Actualizing Internationalism and 
     Multiculturalism in the Academic Programs of the University 
     of the District of Columbia: $1,000,000 shall be paid to the 
     Excel Institute Adult Education Program by the Chief 
     Financial Officer quarterly on the first day of each quarter, 
     and not less than $200,000 for the Adult Education and 
     $27,256,000 (including $26,030,000 from local funds, $560,000 
     from Federal funds and $666,000 other funds) for the Public 
     Library: Provided further, That $2,198,000 (including 
     $1,760,000 from local funds, $398,000 from Federal funds and 
     $40,000 from other funds) shall be available for the 
     Commission on the Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That 
     the public schools of the District of Columbia are authorized 
     to accept not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use 
     in the driver education program: Provided further, That not 
     to exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 
     for the President of the University of the District of 
     Columbia, and $2,000 for the Public Librarian shall be 
     available from this appropriation for official purposes: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds contained in this 
     Act may be made available to pay the salaries of any District 
     of Columbia Public School teacher, principal, administrator, 
     official, or employee who knowingly provides false enrollment 
     or attendance information under article II, section 5 of the 
     Act entitled ``An Act to provide for compulsory school 
     attendance, for the taking of a school census in the District 
     of Columbia, and for other purposes'', approved February 4, 
     1925 (D.C. Official Code, sec. 38-201 et seq.): Provided 
     further, That this appropriation shall not be available to 
     subsidize the education of any nonresident of the District of 
     Columbia at any District of Columbia public elementary and 
     secondary school during fiscal year 2002 unless the 
     nonresident pays tuition to the District of Columbia at a 
     rate that covers 100 percent of the costs incurred by the 
     District of Columbia which are attributable to the education 
     of the nonresident (as established by the Superintendent of 
     the District of Columbia Public Schools): Provided further, 
     That this appropriation shall not be available to subsidize 
     the education of nonresidents of the District of Columbia at 
     the University of the District of Columbia, unless the Board 
     of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia 
     adopts, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, a 
     tuition rate schedule that will establish the tuition rate 
     for nonresident students at a level no lower than the 
     nonresident tuition rate charged at comparable public 
     institutions of higher education in the metropolitan area: 
     Provided further, That 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: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools shall spend $1,200,000 to implement 
     the D.C. Teaching Fellows Program in the District's public 
     schools: Provided further, That notwithstanding the amounts 
     otherwise provided under this heading or any other provision 
     of law, there shall be appropriated to the District of 
     Columbia public charter schools on July 1, 2002, an amount 
     equal to 25 percent of the total amount provided for payments 
     to public charter schools in the proposed budget of the 
     District of Columbia for fiscal year 2003 (as submitted to 
     Congress), and the amount of such payment shall be chargeable 
     against the final amount provided for such payments under the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2003: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding the amounts otherwise provided 
     under this heading or any other provision of law, there shall 
     be appropriated to the District of Columbia Public Schools on 
     July 1, 2002, an amount equal to 10 percent of the total 
     amount provided for the District of Columbia Public Schools 
     in the proposed budget of the District of Columbia for fiscal 
     year 2003 (as submitted to Congress), and the amount of such 
     payment shall be chargeable against the final amount provided 
     for the District of Columbia Public Schools under the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2003.

                         Human Support Services

       Human support services, $1,803,923,000 (including 
     $711,072,000 from local funds, $1,075,960,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $16,891,000 from other funds): Provided, That 
     $27,986,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia 
     employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That 
     $90,000,000 transferred pursuant to the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-522; 114 Stat. 
     2452), to the Public Benefit Corporation for restructuring 
     shall be made available to the Department of Health's Health 
     Care Safety Net Administration for the purpose of 
     restructuring the delivery of health services in the District 
     of Columbia shall remain available for obligation during 
     fiscal year 2002: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia shall not provide free government services such as 
     water, sewer, solid waste disposal or collection, utilities, 
     maintenance, repairs, or similar services to any legally 
     constituted private nonprofit organization, as defined in

[[Page H5998]]

     section 411(5) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
     Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11371), 
     providing emergency shelter services in the District, if the 
     District would not be qualified to receive reimbursement 
     pursuant to such Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 
     U.S.C. 11301 et seq.): Provided further, That no less than 
     $500,000 of the $7,500,000 appropriated for the Addiction 
     Recovery Fund shall be used solely to pay treatment providers 
     who provide substance abuse treatment to TANF recipients 
     under the Drug Treatment Choice Program: Provided further, 
     That no less than $2,000,000 of this appropriation shall be 
     used solely to establish, by contract, a 2-year pilot 
     substance abuse program for youth ages 16 through 21 years of 
     age: Provided further, That no less than $60,000 be available 
     for a D.C. Energy Office Matching Grant: Provided further, 
     That no less than $2,150,000 be available for a pilot Interim 
     Disability Assistance program pursuant to title L of the 
     Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Support Act (D.C. Bill 14-144).

                              Public Works

       Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying 
     vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying 
     vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia 
     and leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles, $300,151,000 
     (including $286,334,000 from local funds, $4,392,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $9,425,000 from other funds): Provided, 
     That $11,000,000 of this appropriation shall be available for 
     transfer to the Highway Trust Fund's Local Roads, 
     Construction and Maintenance Fund upon certification by the 
     Chief Financial Officer that funds are available from the 
     fiscal year 2001 budgeted reserve or where the Chief 
     Financial Officer certifies that additional local revenues 
     are available: Provided further, That this appropriation 
     shall not be available for collecting ashes or miscellaneous 
     refuse from hotels and places of business.

                         Receivership Programs

       For all agencies of the District of Columbia government 
     under court ordered receivership, $403,368,000 (including 
     $250,015,000 from local funds, $134,339,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $19,014,000 from other funds).

                         Workforce Investments

       For workforce investments, $42,896,000 from local funds, to 
     be transferred by the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
     within the various appropriation headings in this Act for 
     which employees are properly payable.

                                Reserve

       For replacement of funds expended, if any, during fiscal 
     year 2001 from the Reserve established by section 202(j) of 
     the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Act of 1995, Public Law 104-8, 
     $150,000,000 from local funds: Provided, That none of these 
     funds shall be obligated or expended under this heading until 
     the emergency reserve fund established under Sec. 450A(a) of 
     the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198 as 
     amended; 114 Stat. 2478; D.C. Official Code, Sec. 1-
     204.50a(a)) has been fully funded for fiscal year 2002.

                        Contingency Reserve Fund

       For the contingency reserve fund established under section 
     450A(b) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 
     93-198; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.50a(b)), the amount 
     provided for fiscal year 2002 under such section, to be 
     derived from local funds.

                    Repayment of Loans and Interest

       For payment of principal, interest, and certain fees 
     directly resulting from borrowing by the District of Columbia 
     to fund District of Columbia capital projects as authorized 
     by sections 462, 475, and 490 of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198 as amended; D.C. Official 
     Code, secs. 1-204.62, 1-204.75, 1-204.90), $247,902,000 from 
     local funds: Provided, That any funds set aside pursuant to 
     section 148 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
     2000 (Public Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1523) that are not used 
     in the reserve funds established herein shall be used for 
     Pay-As-You-Go Capital Funds: Provided further, That for 
     equipment leases, the Mayor may finance $14,300,000 of 
     equipment cost, plus cost of issuance not to exceed 2 percent 
     of the par amount being financed on a lease purchase basis 
     with a maturity not to exceed 5 years: Provided further, That 
     $4,440,000 is allocated for the Fire and Emergency Medical 
     Services Department, $2,010,000 for the Department of Parks 
     and Recreation, and $7,850,000 for the Department of Public 
     Works.

                Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt

       For the purpose of eliminating the $331,589,000 general 
     fund accumulated deficit as of September 30, 1990, 
     $39,300,000 from local funds, as authorized by section 461(a) 
     of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, (105 Stat. 540; 
     D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.61(a)).

              Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing

       For payment of interest on short-term borrowing, $500,000 
     from local funds.

                           Emergency Planning

       For an emergency operations plan, implementation of the 
     emergency operations plan, and reimbursement of planning and 
     related expenses incurred by the District of Columbia in 
     anticipation of the planned World Bank and International 
     Monetary Fund September 2001 meetings, $16,058,000, from 
     funds previously appropriated in this Act as a Federal 
     payment: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     apportioned by the Chief Financial Officer within the various 
     appropriation heading in this Act.

                            Wilson Building

       For expenses associated with the John A. Wilson Building, 
     $8,859,000 from local funds.

                    Emergency Reserve Fund Transfer

       Subject to the issuance of bonds to pay the purchase price 
     of the District of Columbia's right, title, and, interest in 
     and to the Master Settlement Agreement, and consistent with 
     the Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund Establishment Act of 1999 
     (D.C. Official Code, sec. 7-1811.01(a)(2) et seq.) and the 
     Tobacco Settlement Financing Act of 2000 (D.C. Official Code, 
     sec. 7-1831.03), there is transferred the amount available 
     pursuant thereto, but not to exceed $33,254,000, to the 
     Emergency Reserve Fund established pursuant to section 
     450A(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 
     93-198, as amended; 114 Stat. 2478; D.C. Official Code, sec. 
     1-204.50a(a)).

                        Non-Departmental Agency

       To account for anticipated costs that cannot be allocated 
     to specific agencies during the development of the proposed 
     budget including anticipated employee health insurance cost 
     increases and contract security costs, $5,799,000 from local 
     funds.

                       ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS

                       Water and Sewer Authority

       For operation of the Water and Sewer Authority, 
     $244,978,000 from other funds, of which $44,244,000 shall be 
     apportioned for repayment of loans and interest incurred for 
     capital improvement projects ($17,952,936 payable to the 
     District's debt service fund and $26,291,064 payable for 
     other debt service). For construction projects, $152,114,000, 
     in the following capital programs; $52,600,000 for the Blue 
     Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, $11,148,000 for the sewer 
     program, $109,000 for the combined sewer program, $118,000 
     for the stormwater program, $77,957,000 for the water 
     program, and $10,182,000 for the capital equipment program: 
     Provided, That the requirements and restrictions that are 
     applicable to general fund capital improvements projects and 
     set forth in this Act under the Capital Outlay appropriation 
     title shall apply to projects approved under this 
     appropriation title: Provided further, That section 106(b)(2) 
     of the District of Columbia Public Works Act of 1954 (sec. 
     34-2401.25(b)(2), D.C. Official Code) is amended by inserting 
     after ``the Office of Management and Budget,'' the following: 
     ``the Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of each of the 
     respective Federal departments, independent establishments, 
     and agencies,'': Provided further, That section 212(b)(2) of 
     the District of Columbia Public Works Act of 1954 (sec. 34-
     2112(b)(2), D.C. Official Code) is amended by inserting after 
     ``the Office of Management and Budget,'' the following: ``the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, and the head of each of the 
     respective Federal departments, independent establishments, 
     and agencies,''.

                          Washington Aqueduct

       For operation of the Washington Aqueduct, $46,510,000 from 
     other funds.

              Stormwater Permit Compliance Enterprise Fund

       For operation of the Stormwater Permit Compliance 
     Enterprise Fund, $3,100,000 from other funds.

              Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund

       For the Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund, 
     established by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act, 
     1982 (95 Stat. 1174, 1175; Public Law 97-91), for the purpose 
     of implementing the Law to Legalize Lotteries, Daily Numbers 
     Games, and Bingo and Raffles for Charitable Purposes in the 
     District of Columbia (D.C. Law 3-172; D.C. Official Code, 
     sec. 3-1301 et seq. and sec. 22-1716 et seq.), $229,688,000: 
     Provided, That the District of Columbia shall identify the 
     source of funding for this appropriation title from the 
     District's own locally generated revenues: Provided further, 
     That no revenues from Federal sources shall be used to 
     support the operations or activities of the Lottery and 
     Charitable Games Control Board.

                  Sports and Entertainment Commission

       For the Sports and Entertainment Commission, $9,127,000 
     (including $2,177,000 to be derived by transfer from the 
     general fund of the District of Columbia and $6,950,000 from 
     other funds): Provided, That the transfer of $2,177,000 from 
     the general fund shall not be made unless the District of 
     Columbia general fund has received $2,177,000 from the D.C. 
     Sports and Entertainment Commission prior to September 20, 
     2001: Provided further, That the Mayor shall submit a budget 
     for the Armory Board for the forthcoming fiscal year as 
     required by section 442(b) of the District of Columbia Home 
     Rule Act (87 Stat. 824; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Official 
     Code, sec. 1-204.42(b)).

                 District of Columbia Retirement Board

       For the District of Columbia Retirement Board, established 
     by section 121 of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform 
     Act of 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-711), 
     $13,388,000 from the earnings of the applicable retirement 
     funds to pay legal, management, investment, and other fees 
     and administrative expenses of the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board: Provided, That the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board shall provide to the Congress and to the 
     Council of

[[Page H5999]]

     the District of Columbia a quarterly report of the 
     allocations of charges by fund and of expenditures of all 
     funds: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board shall provide the Mayor, for transmittal to 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, an itemized 
     accounting of the planned use of appropriated funds in time 
     for each annual budget submission and the actual use of such 
     funds in time for each annual audited financial report.

              Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund

       For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund, 
     $57,278,000 from other funds.

                         Housing Finance Agency

       For the Housing Finance Agency, $4,711,000 from other 
     funds.

              National Capital Revitalization Corporation

       For the National Capital Revitalization Corporation, 
     $2,673,000 from other funds.

                             CAPITAL OUTLAY


                        (including rescissions)

       For construction projects, an increase of $1,550,787,000 of 
     which $1,348,783,000 shall be from local funds, $44,431,000 
     from Highway Trust funds, and $157,573,000 from Federal 
     funds, and a rescission of $476,182,000 from local funds 
     appropriated under this heading in prior fiscal years, for a 
     net amount of $1,074,605,000 to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That funds for use of each capital 
     project implementing agency shall be managed and controlled 
     in accordance with all procedures and limitations established 
     under the Financial Management System: Provided further, That 
     all funds provided by this appropriation title shall be 
     available only for the specific projects and purposes 
     intended: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     foregoing, all authorizations for capital outlay projects, 
     except those projects covered by the first sentence of 
     section 23(a) of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1968 (82 
     Stat. 827; Public Law 90-495), for which funds are provided 
     by this appropriation title, shall expire on September 30, 
     2003, except authorizations for projects as to which funds 
     have been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 
     30, 2003: Provided further, That upon expiration of any such 
     project authorization, the funds provided herein for the 
     project shall lapse.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 101. 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.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 34, line 24, 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 
Michigan?
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want 
to clarify that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) would have an 
opportunity to offer his amendment. Obviously I think that there may be 
a point of order or something raised at that point, but that his 
opportunity not to offer be void by this unanimous consent.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I will continue to reserve the point 
of order, but I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  The amendment that I would offer, I talked with the chairman and 
ranking member about the fact that I will withdraw it. I apologize for 
the delay. I was trying to get an additional copy for the Reading 
Clerk.
  I rise to have this considered to provide the District of Columbia's 
Metropolitan Police and Fire Department with an additional $5 million 
for the purpose of emergency preparation. In the wake of the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, it is clear that our country needs to do more 
to prepare for such attacks.
  Let me make it very clear, the chairman and ranking member of this 
committee, as well as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
have already addressed this particular subject.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Fattah) yield.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate, I think, for 
the amendment to be read so that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) can, in fact, present it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has that opportunity, but under his 
reservation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) is yielding 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for a discussion under his 
reservation.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       In the item relating to ``FEDERAL FUNDS--Federal Payment 
     for Security Planning''--
       (1) strike ``$16,058,000'' and insert ``$21,058,000''; and
       (2) strike ``$8,029,000'' and all that follows through 
     ``security plan:'' and insert the following: ``$13,058,000 of 
     such amount shall be made available to begin implementation 
     of the security plan, of which $5,000,000 shall be made 
     available for the Metropolitan Police Department and the Fire 
     Department of the District of Columbia:''.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would hurry through this in 
the interest of time.
  I was saying that I wanted to thank the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the ranking member, as well as the chairman and ranking member of 
the full committee. I know that they have observed the necessity by 
virtue of the fact that there are funds that are here, but I also know 
that in the District of Columbia there are significant problems that 
have not been addressed with reference, as we did at the Committee on 
Rules last night, I pointed this out, that they in some respects have 
inadequate resources in the fire and police department.
  As our Nation's capital, the District of Columbia is an obvious 
target. However, as we saw 2 weeks ago, it is in many respects 
unprepared for such attacks. I applaud, as I have, and commend the 
efforts and actions of the District's law enforcement agencies and 
officials. I am equally concerned about the inadequacy of resources 
available to the District's police and fire departments, however.
  No plan was in place on September 11 that dictated how the D.C. 
police and fire department would deal with a plane attack anywhere in 
the District, and I am unaware of any plan currently in place that 
deals with chemical or biological attacks or any other domestic 
disaster that may occur in the future. This is unacceptable.
  In a day and age that warfare is unconventional and casualties will 
most likely occur within our homeland, our country needs to be 
prepared. Cities, States and the Federal Government, all need to do 
their part in developing emergency plans on how to deal with such 
disasters.
  Congress needs to do its part today, and that is why I had offered 
the amendment which at this time I do thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for giving me the opportunity and the great hopes that 
if a supplemental comes along that we will contemplate the fact that 
we, this capital, are in the District of Columbia and that they need 
resources in order to be prepared for any future attacks that we may 
suffer.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to that portion of the 
bill under consideration?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 102. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of 
     organizations concerned with the work of the District of 
     Columbia government, when authorized by the

[[Page H6000]]

     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.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Norton:
       Strike sections 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 
     113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, and 
     127 through 134.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike all general 
provisions in this bill. There are 27 in all. They include so-called 
social riders, and they include redundant and duplicative provisions.
  I recognize that the chairman has removed half of those provisions. 
He will be the chairman next year. If this amendment does not prevail, 
we can perhaps work together next year to at least rid this bill of 
those redundant and duplicative riders.
  Mr. Chairman, the Hill newspaper has an important headline this week: 
Congress United For Now. And the first paragraph reads: ``After a week 
of extraordinary bipartisanship, inspired by the terrorist attacks on 
New York and Washington, Members are questioning how long their 
unprecedented unity will last.''
  I rise to ask that the appropriation for the District of Columbia not 
be the one that breaks this unity. We have heard of at least two riders 
that would break this unity. I ask that the Members hold back on 
breaking the unity that the Committee on Appropriations tried to 
preserve and that is in danger here.
  These general provisions that I would have struck are a fancy word 
for attachments, legislating on an appropriation undemocratically, 
against the will of the people of the District of Columbia. Most of 
them are so-called social riders, the riders that chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
meant when they said let those riders go this time; that the ranking 
members, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) meant when they said it is inappropriate to 
put such riders, attachments, to a bill of local jurisdiction.
  These riders are duplicated in every jurisdiction of the United 
States. They are laws there, they are laws here. They are almost always 
controversial. That is the difference between L.A. and New York, yes 
and the District of Columbia on the one hand and small rural areas on 
the other. My colleagues, this is a Federal Republic. We are one 
Nation. And the only reason we have been able to hold together as one 
Nation is we have respected diversity and difference between 
jurisdictions and local law according to the democratic will.
  It is here that we get a national consensus, not in local 
jurisdictions. We say to local jurisdictions, democracy means you can 
go your own way, we are not to intervene. That is your right as 
Americans. Do I have to remind this body that the 600,000 people I 
represent are Americans every bit as much as they, and they should 
demand exactly the rights that they would demand?
  And yet there will be abortion services denied to poor women if the 
riders remain, even though almost half the States allow their local 
jurisdictions to pay for abortions for poor women. And in any case, 
what my colleagues have done is to create a fund in the District of 
Columbia so that private funds may be used to pay for abortions for 
poor women, and they are regularly used. So we have not reduced 
abortion in that way, but may I inform this body that, on our own, we 
have reduced abortion. The District of Columbia is one of only three 
jurisdictions in the country that is being awarded extra Federal funds 
for reducing teen pregnancy without abortion.
  We are getting $25 million that almost none of the rest of my 
colleagues are getting because we, on our own, have reduced teen 
pregnancy without sending those teens to abortion clinics. We do not 
want those teens to go to abortion clinics. We want them to abstain. We 
want them to use birth control. And it is working. We, indeed, had the 
largest decline in teen pregnancy without the use of abortion.
  And let me compare what we have done in the District as my colleagues 
try to bar our youth from abortion with what other States have done. 
Forty-eight States saw increases in their unwed birth rates that make 
almost all of my colleagues ineligible for the bonus that the District 
of Columbia will get. Virginia, right next door, had their unwed 
birthrate climb by 2.3 percent, making Virginia number 18 in the 
country; and Maryland's rate climbed 3.3 percent, making them number 33 
in the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that in the name of democracy and the people 
I represent, I had to put this matter before the body.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

                              {time}  1230

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from the District of Colubmia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
committee, in particular the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for deleting from this legislation a very unjust 
restriction on the limit of legal rights of parents of special-needs 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Committee, and particularly the 
gentlemen from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fattah) and Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for deleting from this legislation 
very unjust restrictions that limit the legal rights of parents of 
special needs children.
  The DC appropriations law over the past several years has placed a 
very restricted ceiling on the legal awards to parents who successfully 
litigate to win special education benefits for their children. As the 
author of those due process provisions in the 1975 Education of All 
Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142), now knows as IDEA, and the 
senior Democratic Member of the authorizing Committee, I greatly 
appreciate the Appropriations Committee's decision to delete this 
punitive and discriminatory provision.
  The Congress included attorney fees in the 1975 law specifically 
because we anticipated that some states would be reluctant to provide 
children with the special education service the Supreme Court and the 
Congress declared they have a right to receive. Particularly in the 
case of low income parents who might be unable to otherwise secure 
legal representation to challenge Board of Education decisions to 
refuse to provide special education services, the possibility of 
receiving reasonable attorney fees is all that gives these parents a 
hope of securing a lawyer to win educational services for their 
children.
  It is disgraceful that the Congress chose to deprive only the poorer 
parents of special needs children in the District of Columbia of these 
rights. The only entity in the continental United States that lacks 
voting rights. The only entity with a majority minority population. 
Yes, some fees awarded to some lawyers were excessive; that is why the 
law allows for reasonable fees. And high fees occurred in states other 
than the District of Columbia; but interestingly, no one suggested that 
their constituents be denied access to attorneys to secure special 
education services. We just decided to impose that restriction on 
parents--and generally, poor and minority parents--in D.C.
  These legal fees can run $40,000 or more in Maryland and Virginia. 
yet the Congress has limited D.C. parents to a fraction of that amount. 
In effect, that means D.C. parents cannot find lawyers to represent 
them in cases against a Board of Education that has run a dreadful 
special education program for many years. The law granted parents the 
remedy of attorney fees specifically so that could pressure 
recalcitrant education officials to providing the services that special 
needs children require. Instead, the Congress has insulated the D.C. 
Board of Education at the expense of students who need special ED 
services.
  The D.C. City Council and the Mayor have rightly opposed such a cap 
and I am delighted that this legislation before us today treats D.C. 
like every other jurisdiction in the country. It comes as no surprise 
that some in the education bureaucracy favor retaining a cap; they are 
the ones being sued. We should not be swayed by the cynical argument 
that money allocated to lawyers could otherwise go towards educating 
special needs children. If the

[[Page H6001]]

D.C. schools were educating these children, there would be no need for 
suits, and the suits would not be successful and thereby generating 
attorney fees.
  If anyone has been misusing the attorney fees section of IDEA, that 
is a subject to be addressed in the reauthorization of the IDEA law, 
and it would be raised with respect to all jurisdictions that fall 
under the law, not just the residents of the District of Columbia who 
happen to have no vote here in the Congress. I will wait to see who 
appear before our Committee to recommend that residents of their 
district or state be denied access to attorneys to protect their 
child's right to special education services.
  In the meantime, I congratulate the Committee for treating D.C. 
fairly and for allowing parents of special needs children in this city 
the same rights that all other parents in this country have to seek 
appropriate education services for their children.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have come here to speak in the debate 
portion on behalf of the Weldon amendment that is going to be voted on 
sooon. I think the point that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) 
is making when he offers this, is that if we have in place the words 
that allow them to use private funds within the D.C. appropriations but 
not Federal funds, I am not sure that money, being fungible, won't turn 
out to be Federal funds also. Federal and private funds will be mixed.
  I do not think we can be sure that by not adopting the Weldon 
amendment that we will have in place a bill that, up until the last 9 
years, has essentially not allowed domestic partnerships. So I think by 
not adopting the Weldon amendment we are changing historically what the 
House has agreed to overwhelmingly in the past.
  In fact, we have had several recent votes on this and I think just to 
remind Members, on June 30, 1993, 8 years ago, 251 to 177, rollcall No. 
313, the Istook amendment for the full funding ban was passed. Then on 
November 1, 1995, it was 249 to 172, rollcall No. 759, the Hostettler 
amendment when the ban was sustained. So the House has spoken on this.
  I hope the Weldon amendment will be adopted again. When the Members 
come to the House floor to vote on the Weldon amendment, I want them to 
realize that if they do not adopt it, then Federal and private money is 
fungible and that Federal and private will be mixed. That is the real 
issue. I do not think we have to go into what the will of the House has 
been year after year on this matter.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) in 1992 when we were in the 
minority, when the Democrats controlled Congress, offered an amendment 
to recommit the D.C. appropriation bill and force them to put the 
funding ban on D.C. domestic partners. This goes back to 1992. The 
motion of the gentleman passed 235 to 173. That was rollcall No. 420. 
The ban was ultimately signed into law.
  So my colleagues, if Members come on the floor and vote against the 
Weldon amendment, they are voting against the tradition and history of 
this House that has overwhelmingly supported time and time again, going 
back to 1992, what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is doing 
today. So I think the argument is clear. I support the Weldon 
amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 43, line 15 be considered as read, 
printed in the Record and open to any amendment at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 35 line 8 through page 43 line 15 is 
as follows:
       Sec. 103. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have 
     been entered against the District of Columbia government: 
     Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be 
     construed as modifying or affecting the provisions of section 
     11(c)(3) of title XII of the District of Columbia Income and 
     Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (70 Stat. 78; Public Law 84-460; 
     D.C. Official Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
       Sec. 104. 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. 105. 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. 106. 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 House Committee on Government Reform, 
     the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Council 
     of the District of Columbia, or their duly authorized 
     representative.
       Sec. 107. 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. 
     47-422 et seq.).
       Sec. 108. 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. 109. 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. 110. (a) 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 2002, 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 this 
     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 Committees on Appropriations 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.
       (b) None of the local funds contained in this Act may be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for an agency through 
     a reprogramming of funds which transfers any local funds from 
     one appropriation to another unless the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives are 
     notified in writing 30 days in advance of the transfer, 
     except that in no event may the amount of any funds 
     transferred exceed two percent of the local funds in the 
     appropriation.
       Sec. 111. Consistent with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 
     1301(a), appropriations under this Act shall be applied only 
     to the objects for which the appropriations were made except 
     as otherwise provided by law.
       Sec. 112. (a) 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. Official Code, sec. 1-601.01 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. Official Code, sec. 1-
     204.22(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.
       (b)(1) Certification of Need by Chief Technology Officer.--
     Section 2706(b) of the District of Columbia Government 
     Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, as added by 
     section 2 of the District Government Personnel Exchange 
     Agreement Amendment Act of 2000 (D.C. Law 13-296), is amended 
     by inserting after ``Director of Personnel'' each place it 
     appears the following: ``(or the Chief Technology Officer, in 
     the case of the Office of the Chief Technology Officer)''.
       (2) Inclusion of Overhead Costs in Agreements.--Section 
     2706(c)(3) of such Act is amended by striking the period at 
     the end and inserting the following: ``, except that in the 
     case of the Office of the Chief Technology Officer, general 
     and administrative costs shall include reasonable overhead 
     costs and shall be calculated by the Chief Technology Officer 
     (as determined under such criteria as the Chief Technology 
     Officer independently deems appropriate, including a

[[Page H6002]]

     consideration of standards used to calculate general, 
     administrative, and overhead costs for off-site employees 
     found in Federal law and regulation and in general private 
     industry practice).''.
       (3) Reporting Requirement.--Section 2706 of such Act is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Not later than 45 days after the end of each fiscal 
     year (beginning with fiscal year 2002), the Chief Technology 
     Officer shall prepare and submit to the Council and to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and Senate a report describing all agreements entered into by 
     the Chief Technology Officer under this section which are in 
     effect during the fiscal year.''.
       (c) No Limit on FTEs.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, no limit may be placed on the number of full-time 
     equivalent employees of the Office of the Chief Technology 
     Officer of the District of Columbia for any fiscal year.
       (d) Section 424(b)(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule 
     Act (sec. 1-204.24b(c), D.C. Official Code) is amended by 
     striking ``level IV'' and inserting ``level I''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (d) 
     shall apply with respect to pay periods in fiscal year 2002 
     and each succeeding fiscal year.
       Sec. 113. 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. Official Code, sec. 2-303.03), 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.
       Sec. 114. 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.


                      Acceptance and Use of Gifts

       Sec. 115. (a) Approval by Mayor.--
       (1) In general.--An entity of the District of Columbia 
     government may accept and use a gift or donation during 
     fiscal year 2002 if--
       (A) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift 
     or donation (except as provided in paragraph (2)); and
       (B) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its 
     authorized functions or duties.
       (2) Exception for council and courts.--The Council of the 
     District of Columbia and the District of Columbia courts may 
     accept and use gifts without prior approval by the Mayor.
       (b) Records and Public Inspection.--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), and shall make such records 
     available for audit and public inspection.
       (c) Independent Agencies Included.--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) Exception for Board of Education.--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. 116. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for 
     salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the 
     offices of United States Senator or United States 
     Representative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia 
     Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979 (D.C. 
     Law 3-171; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-123).
       Sec. 117. 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.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 118. None of the Federal 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. Official 
     Code, sec. 32-701 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.


           part b amendment offered by mr. weldon of florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       In section 118 (relating to the use of funds to implement 
     or enforce the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992), 
     strike ``Federal''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 245, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed, the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe), each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering my amendment because the bill before us 
is such a stark departure from 9 years of previous law. My amendment 
simply continues current law.
  Ever since the District of Columbia passed its domestic partnership 
act in 1992, the Congress has included a provision to prevent its 
implementation. Congress and the President have chosen to uphold the 
institution of marriage, and I am disappointed that others would choose 
this time to try to reverse it.
  Please do not believe for a moment that this is about home rule. If 
you want to believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like 
to sell.
  How you vote on this today will have an impact on the institution of 
marriage in the United States and on how corporations and State and 
municipal governments treat this issue throughout our Nation for the 
years to come. Furthermore, under article I of the Constitution and the 
D.C. home rule law, the Congress maintains full authority to do this.
  Today, marriage is under assault from culture, the media, and many 
other entities. Do we want to add the Federal Government to that list? 
It is critical that we do not go down this path and that we take steps 
to encourage strong marriages.
  Study after study have demonstrated that strong marriages between a 
man and a woman have a stabilizing influence on our community and our 
societies. The children suffer fewer problems and are less at risk when 
they are raised in families with a mother and father. We should be 
passing laws to encourage traditional families. We should not be 
passing laws that make traditional marriage simply one of several 
morally-equivalent options.
  Mr. Chairman, a vote against my amendment is a vote to place 
heterosexual and homosexual cohabitating relationships on an equal 
footing with traditional marriage. A vote for my amendment says Members 
believe that traditional marriage is important and should remain a 
priority in our society.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, it has been 9 long years since the 
District of Columbia passed the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act. The 
locally approved law has never taken effect, however, because each year 
Congress has banned the use of Federal or local money to implement the 
program. This is unfortunate. Let us put an end to this today, this 
congressional meddling.
  Mr. Chairman, defeat the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon). Let the District of Columbia do what hundreds of 
other local governments and private businesses have done. It is a 
humanitarian measure. It grants not only gay and lesbian couples the 
same protections against illnesses as married heterosexual couples, but 
also extends the benefits to disabled people, to live-in health care 
providers, a single man or woman caring for an elderly parent, and 
other living situations not traditionally covered by health insurance.
  The appropriations bill, and I must commend the chairman and the 
ranking member, as reported did not have

[[Page H6003]]

 that provision. It allowed for the first time the District to put its 
own money toward this program that it believed in. Let the bill stand 
as is. Vote against the Weldon amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me explain to Members, a domestic 
partner means a person with whom an individual maintains a committed 
relationship. And a committed relationship means a familial 
relationship, not recognized by the United States in terms of marriage; 
it is just a committed relationship. The idea is the mutual caring and 
the sharing of a mutual residence. But commitments change.
  What happens if that person says yes, I am living with this person 
and I want health care; but he or she does not report that he or she 
has left this person. How will the Federal Government develop all of 
the regulations that are required to get competent jurisdiction in 
civil suits to recover damages if this person does not show that he or 
she has a committed relationship. Why is the Federal Government getting 
involved in deciding what is a committed relationship? They should get 
married and be recognized as married, and it should be a heterosexual 
marriage.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the bill that is before us says 
no Federal funds can be used to implement the D.C. Health Benefits Act, 
an act that was passed back in 1992. Since that act was passed, 113 
other local cities have implemented the same domestic partnership 
legislation, cities like Atlanta, Albany, Chicago, New Orleans, and New 
York. They did it because their constituents wanted it.
  D.C.'s elected city council understands its constituents, has asked 
them to pass this legislation. But it is not just municipal 
governments. Corporations like IBM, AT&T, Boeing, Citigroup, they have 
the same domestic partnership policy. It does not do exclusively what 
has been suggested. It applies to every situation where you have caring 
people living together, and in many cases providing for the other 
person.
  Mr. Chairman, in so many households in D.C., we have a grandmother 
and a mother taking care of the children. We have disabled people, and 
their live-in care provider would be able to purchase health insurance. 
We have two sisters living together, two elderly people who cannot 
marry for economic reasons. They should be able to purchase health 
insurance at their own expense. At their own expense. There is no 
Federal Government money involved here. Keep the bill the way it is. 
Defeat the Weldon amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Arizona 
have any remaining speakers? I only have one remaining speaker.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I have two remaining speakers; but 
representing the committee position, I believe I have the right to 
close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), representing 
the committee position, has the right to close.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, how can anyone with a heart or mind try to 
keep anyone from paying money for their own health care today? Cities 
such as Atlanta; Scottsdale, Arizona; New Orleans, and thousands of 
businesses have more comprehensive domestic partnership plans than the 
District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, the Weldon amendment is an expression of unadulterated 
bigotry. Do not mar the D.C. appropriations with ugly prejudice.
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, sometimes words that are said on the floor 
are very unfortunate. This amendment has nothing to do with bigotry; it 
has to do with tradition and understanding what is marriage and what is 
the role of marriage in this country.
  Members should support the Weldon amendment because it defends the 
traditional understanding of marriage. The Weldon amendment rejects a 
broad new recognition of relationships that would extend the benefits 
of marriage to people who have not made that special commitment. 
Marriage can only take place between a man and a woman, in my opinion.
  Mr. Chairman, introducing domestic partnership benefits would have 
broad consequences extending far beyond the specific action 
contemplated here. We would be walking away from the traditions and 
virtues that we have respected and honored since our country was 
founded, and even before.
  Doing so would radically undermine the special privileges and 
incentives of marriage by distributing them without requiring the 
unique commitment between a man and a woman. When married couples 
forsake all others and bind themselves together, they form a vital unit 
to rear their children and they strengthen society immeasurably.
  Mr. Chairman, we should protect the sanctity of that special bond 
called marriage. Members should support the Weldon amendment.

                              {time}  1245

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) has 30 seconds 
remaining if he wishes to use it.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, for 7 years, I was one of the 
only physicians in my county who treated AIDS patients. I got up in the 
middle of the night, went into the hospital, examined them, took care 
of them, for years.
  I really take offense at some of the language that has been used in 
response to my amendment. The purpose of my amendment is to protect the 
integrity of the institution of marriage in the United States. Some 
people do not understand that. But I would never call them names 
because they do not seem to understand that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In contrast to what the two previous speakers said, I do not believe 
this has anything to do with marriage. Family law in our country is 
State law. One hundred thirteen or 117 jurisdictions in the United 
States have adopted similar provisions. Those States did not alter 
their definition of marriage when they allowed municipal jurisdictions 
in their States to audit these provisions.
  This does not have anything to do with the definition of marriage in 
family law. This has to do with whether or not the District of 
Columbia, like those 113 other government units and one-third of the 
Fortune 500 companies, is going to be allowed to permit its employees 
to extend, to include in their health coverage at 100 percent expense 
to the individual, to include a partner, a woman who is raising her 
child who has her mother living with her as the caretaker, to include 
that grandmother in the coverage; a disabled person, to include his 
caregiver or her caregiver in the coverage.
  That is what this is all about. It is not about the definition of 
marriage. And it is not expensive. Eighty-five percent of companies 
that offer these provisions do not experience additional costs 
according to the Society for Human Resources Management.
  This is about allowing the District of Columbia and its employees to 
purchase the insurance at their own expense. Let me reiterate that. One 
hundred percent of the cost at their own expense. Not the Federal 
Government, not the District of Columbia. The only expense for the 
District of Columbia is the cost implementing the law by maintaining a 
register of domestic partners. There is no subsidy that is involved in 
this. It applies to all potential familial partners. It is not just a 
gay partner, a lesbian partner; it is heterosexual, it is the disabled 
partner, it is the grandmother and the daughter that I mentioned 
earlier. It is all kinds of people, seniors who might be living 
together.
  The fact is that our traditional families have changed in American 
society. The family today is likely to include the arrangements 
mentioned earlier. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Show 
confidence in the District of Columbia; show respect for

[[Page H6004]]

the individuals who are affected and defeat this amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida to restrict the 
District of Columbia's ability to use their own local funds to 
implement the Health Care Benefits Act of 1992. For almost a decade 
now, this body has blocked the District of Columbia from using any 
local or federal funds to implement this law, which would expand health 
care benefits for domestic partners. This must stop.
  Particularly today, with the attacks on our country fresh in our 
mind, it is extremely important that we come together as a nation and 
in our communities. Our American family includes many families, 
traditional and non-traditional. Our nation should welcome diversity. 
We should respect each other, not be divisive.
  Domestic partnership laws acknowledge and respect the non-traditional 
family structures in our world today. These include relationships such 
as grandmothers and mothers living together raising children, persons 
with disabilities and their live-in care providers, and unmarried 
partners, both heterosexual and gay and lesbian. We as a government 
must grow with the society we are governing and embrace it.
  We must respect the rights of non-traditional families. We must also 
respect the right of the District of Columbia to respond to the 
concerns and needs of its residents. Many other cities across the 
country provide domestic partnership benefits to their employees. Since 
1997, the City of Chicago has offered domestic partner benefits. Other 
cities have been offering these benefits since the early 1990's. Those 
laws are working well, providing important protections for our 
constituents. There is absolutely no justification for this body to 
prevent D.C. residents from receiving those same benefits.
  This amendment is anti-local control, anti-good public health policy, 
and just plain bad business. In 1999, a survey in Human Resources 
Management ranked domestic partner benefits as the most effective 
recruiting incentive for executives and the third most effective 
recruiting incentive for managers and line workers. Employers must have 
the ability to offer competitive benefit packages in order to recruit 
quality applicants.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this restriction and 
allow the implementation of the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 
1992 in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Weldon 
amendment which would prevent the District of Columbia from using its 
own funds to provide domestic partner benefits.
  There has been a lot of discussion in the past two weeks about 
sadness and anger, and most of that discussion was about the attacks of 
September 11th. Today, there is yet another reason to be both sad and 
angry.
  Today, this House is departing from its partisan truce and healing 
rhetoric of unity. Today, the war will have to wait, while we strip 
gays and lesbians of legal benefits and once again thwart democracy 
right here in Washington, DC.
  There are 113 jurisdictions nationwide that have domestic partner 
benefits and Congress has taken no action to block any of these 
benefits provided to other Americans.
  The fact that some Members of Congress seek to do so today is 
insulting, outrageous, and, quite frankly, offensive.
  The House Appropriations Committee acted in a bipartisan manner to 
allow DC to offer its residents domestic partner benefits, and now the 
House leadership has authorized the violation of House Rules in order 
to undo the work of the Committee on this issue.
  Domestic partner benefits allow residents to visit loved ones in 
hospitals and long term care facilities, officially register as 
partners, and, for employees of the District of Columbia government, to 
purchase health insurance at their own expense for their partner. This 
is hardly revolutionary or even uncommon in our nation today. Over 
4,200 employers around the country, including hundreds of cities, 
colleges, and universities, have already established domestic 
partnership health programs.
  In fact, this amendment is not only mean-spirited and unwarranted, it 
is also bad health care policy. At a time when millions of Americans 
lack any health insurance, why would we stand in the way of any 
extension of health care benefits? Do we as a Congress really want to 
tell D.C. residents, they should be denied health care simply because 
of whom they love?
  This amendment is a disgrace and should be defeated.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Weldon 
amendment to H.R. 2944, the District of Columbia appropriations bill 
for FY2002. This amendment would prohibit local funds from being used 
to implement the District of Columbia domestic partnership act.
  I would like to point out that the heroes of the tragic attacks on 
New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania include:
  Mark Bingham, a passenger on American Airlines 77 who helped resist 
the hijackers and prevented the plane from crashing into a national 
monument in Washington, D.C.
  David Charlesbois, American Airlines flight 77 co-pilot and resident 
of Washington, D.C.;
  Father Mychal Judge, Fire Department Chaplain and Franciscan priest 
who died while delivering last rites to victims of the attack on the 
World Trade Center.
  These three courageous Americans are all heroes and are all gay. Many 
more gay Americans continue to assist in efforts in the aftermath of 
the tragedies--rescue workers, healthcare professionals and volunteers 
from around the country.
  How can we deny these heroes domestic partnership benefits? I 
strongly encourage my colleagues to vote against the Weldon amendment 
and support local funding for domestic partnership benefits.
  I would also like to submit into the record a commentary from the 
National Public Radio show ``Weekend Edition Saturday.''

Commentary: Inappropriate Comments Made by the Reverends Jerry Falwell 
       and Pat Robertson Regarding the World Trade Center Bombing

                          (September 22, 2001)

       Scott Simon (host). I really don't want to be critical of 
     anyone during a national crisis, especially people who are 
     sources of spiritual guidance to millions of Americans. But 
     sometimes the Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say 
     something so staggering, they renew your capacity to be 
     shocked, amen, even in a shocking time. Last week when 
     America was wounded and confused, the Reverend Falwell was a 
     guest on Pat Robertson's television show, ``The 700 Club.'' 
     He said that God Almighty, angered by America's abortion 
     rights, gay rights and secularism in schools, had permitted 
     terrorists to slay the World Trade Center and smite the 
     Pentagon.


                     SOUNDBITE OF ``THE 700 CLUB''

       Reverend Jerry Falwell. What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible 
     as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to 
     lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us 
     probably what we deserve.
       Reverend Pat Robertson. Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I 
     think we've just seem the antechamber to terror. We haven't 
     even begun to see what they can do to the major population.
       Rev. Falwell. I really believe that the pagans and the 
     abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians 
     who are actively trying to make that an alternate lifestyle, 
     the ACLU, People for the American Way--all of them who've 
     tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face 
     and say, ``You helped this happen.''
       Simon. This week, both the reverends issued apologies. Mr. 
     Falwell called his own remarks ``insensitive, uncalled for 
     and unnecessary,'' everything but wrong. This week, it was 
     reported that Mark Bingham, a San Francisco public relations 
     executive, may well have been one of the passengers who so 
     bravely resisted the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 
     77. That flight crashed into an unpopulated field outside of 
     Pittsburgh instead of another national monument. Mr. Bingham 
     was 31. He played on a local gay rugby team and hoped to 
     compete in next year's Gay Games in Sydney, Australia.
       I don't know if Mark Bingham was religious, but it seems to 
     me that he lived a life that celebrated the preciousness of 
     this world's infinite variety. Not so the Reverends Robertson 
     and Falwell and the mullahs of the Taliban, who seem to see a 
     god who frowns at tolerance and smiles with approval on 
     murder and destruction. Let me put it in the bold terms in 
     which many Americans may be thinking right now. If your plane 
     was hijacked, who would you rather sit next to? Righteous 
     reverneds who will sit back and say, ``This is God's 
     punishment for gay Teletubbies,'' or the gay rugby player who 
     lays down his life to save others? And by the way, which 
     person seems closer to God?


                           SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC

       Simon. And you're listening to NPR's WEEKEND EDITION.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on the amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how the Chair 
determined that a sufficient number had risen to ask for a recorded 
vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. By a count of Members on their feet. It is not subject 
to appeal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 226, not voting 10, as follows:

[[Page H6005]]

                             [Roll No. 352]

                               AYES--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cooksey
     Meeks (NY)
     Owens
     Peterson (MN)
     Rehberg
     Rush
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Watson (CA)

                              {time}  1312

  Messrs. MALONEY of Connecticut, ORTIZ, ROSS, LaFALCE and Ms. WOOLSEY 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GEKAS and Mr. RADANOVICH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 352 I put my voting card 
in the machine but the vote was not recorded. I would have voted 
``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 119. (a) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in 
     Ceiling.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the Mayor, in consultation with the Chief Financial 
     Officer 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 
     Council 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 Council a report setting forth detailed 
     information regarding such grant; and
       (B) the Council within 15 days after receipt of the report 
     submitted under (A) has reviewed and approved the acceptance, 
     obligation, and expenditure of such grant.
       (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.
       Sec. 120. (a) 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) The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     shall submit, by November 15, 2001, an inventory, as of 
     September 30, 2001, 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.
       (c) No officer or employee of the District of Columbia 
     government (including any independent agency of the District 
     but excluding 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. 121. 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

[[Page H6006]]

       (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. 122. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of the Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each agency of the Federal or District of 
     Columbia government shall provide to each recipient of the 
     assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 123. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the 
     District of Columbia government for fiscal year 2002 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. 
     Official Code, sec. 2-302.8); and
       (2) the audit includes as a basic financial statement 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 using the 
     format, terminology, and classifications contained in the law 
     making the appropriations for the year and its legislative 
     history.
       Sec. 124. 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. 125. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may 
     be used for any program of distributing sterile needles or 
     syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
       (b) Any individual or entity who receives any funds 
     contained in this Act and who carries out any program 
     described in subsection (a) shall account for all funds used 
     for such program separately from any funds contained in this 
     Act.
       Sec. 126. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used after the expiration of the 60-day period that begins on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act to pay the salary of 
     any chief financial officer of any office of the District of 
     Columbia government (including any independent agency of the 
     District) who has not filed a certification with the Mayor 
     and the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     that the officer understands the duties and restrictions 
     applicable to the officer and the officer's agency 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.
       Sec. 127. 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. 128. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may 
     be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to 
     legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the 
     possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance 
     under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any 
     tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
       (b) The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment 
     Initiative of 1998, also known as Initiative 59, approved by 
     the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 1998, 
     shall not take effect.
       Sec. 129. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia is hereby solely 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. 130. Nothing in this Act 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.
       Sec. 131. Section 149 of division A, Miscellaneous 
     Appropriations Act, 2001, as enacted by section 1(A)(4) of 
     Public Law 106-554 shall apply with respect to claims 
     received by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or 
     the District of Columbia Court of Appeals during fiscal year 
     2002, and claims received previously that remain unpaid at 
     the end of fiscal year 2001 and would have qualified for 
     interest payment under such section 149.

   Federal Contribution for Enforcement of Law Banning Possession of 
                       Tobacco Products by Minors

       Sec. 132. (a) Contribution.--There is hereby appropriated a 
     Federal contribution of $100,000 to the Metropolitan Police 
     Department of the District of Columbia, effective upon the 
     enactment by the District of Columbia of a law which reads as 
     follows:


           ``BAN ON POSSESSION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS BY MINORS

       ``Section 1. (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     individual under 18 years of age to possess any cigarette or 
     other tobacco product in the District of Columbia.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) Possession in course of employment.--Subsection (a) 
     shall not apply with respect to an individual making a 
     delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in pursuance of 
     employment.
       ``(2) Participation in law enforcement operation.--
     Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an individual 
     possessing products in the course of a valid, supervised law 
     enforcement operation.
       ``(c) Penalties.--Any individual who violates subsection 
     (a) shall be subject to the following penalties:
       ``(1) For any violation, the individual may be required to 
     perform community service or attend a tobacco cessation 
     program.
       ``(2) Upon the first violation, the individual shall be 
     subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.
       ``(3) Upon the second and each subsequent violation, the 
     individual shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 
     $100.
       ``(4) Upon the third and each subsequent violation, the 
     individual may have his or her driving privileges in the 
     District of Columbia suspended for a period of 90 consecutive 
     days.''.
       (b) Use of Contribution.--The Metropolitan Police 
     Department shall use the contribution made under subsection 
     (a) to enforce the law referred to in such subsection.
       Sec. 133. 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. 134. (a) Section 11201(g)(4)(A) of the National 
     Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 
     1997 (sec. 24-1201(g)(4)(A), D.C. Code), as amended by 
     section 163 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
     2001, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ix);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (x); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(xi) obligate and expend the proceeds and funds deposited 
     under clauses (ix) and (x) as provided in such clauses.''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     on October 1, 20002.
       ``Sec. 135. No later than the later of November 1, 2001, or 
     30 calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, the Mayor, 
     and the Council a revised appropriated funds operating budget 
     in the format of the budget that the District of Columbia 
     government submitted pursuant to section 442 of the District 
     of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Official 
     Code, sec. 1-204.42), for all agencies of the District of 
     Columbia government for such fiscal year that is in the total 
     amount of the approved appropriation and that realigns all 
     budgeted data for personal services and other-than-personal-
     services, respectively, with anticipated actual expenditures.
       Sec. 136. Section 403 of the District of Columbia Home Rule 
     Act, approved December 24, 1973 (Public Law 93-198; D.C. 
     Official Code, sec. 1-204.03), is amended as follows:
       (1) Subsection (c) is amended by striking ``shall receive, 
     in addition to the compensation to which he is entitled as a 
     member of the Council, $10,000 per annum, payable in equal 
     installments, for each year he serves as Chairman, but the 
     Chairman.''
       (2) A new subsection (d) is added to read as follows:
       ``(d) Notwithstanding subsection (a), as the effective date 
     of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001, the 
     Chairman shall

[[Page H6007]]

     receive compensation, payable in equal installments, at a 
     rate equal to $10,000 less than the compensation of the 
     Mayor.''.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill, through page 55, line 15, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec.  . None of the funds contained in this Act may be used 
     to issue, administer, or enforce any order by the District of 
     Columbia Commission on Human Rights relating to docket 
     numbers 93-030-(PA) and 93-031-(PA).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
will protect the Boy Scouts of America from the latest political attack 
on its constitutionally protected rights.
  The most recent assault against the scouts occurred on June 20 when 
the District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights ruled that the Boy 
Scouts of America had violated the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977. The 
Boy Scouts' crime? In keeping with their longstanding values and 
standards, the Boy Scouts had expelled two homosexual scout masters in 
Washington, D.C.
  Now, despite the constitutional protection of freedom of association, 
and despite the Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed the Boy Scouts' 
right to determine its criteria for members and leaders, the District 
of Columbia Human Rights Commission ordered the Boy Scouts to reinstate 
the troop leaders and pay them $50,000 each. In addition, the 
Commission ruled that the Scouts must also pay all attorneys' fees and 
court costs.
  Mr. Chairman, this arrogant and intrusive ruling is just the latest 
in a long string of cultural broadsides against the Boy Scouts of 
America, a group dedicated to instilling selflessness, character, 
responsibility, and love for God and country of our Nation's boys and 
young men.
  It was a year ago this month that legislation was brought to the 
floor that would have ended the Boy Scouts' Federal charter. I would 
remind my colleagues that of the 435 Members of the House of 
Representatives, only 12 voted to punish this private organization for 
putting its beliefs into practice.
  Now, during this debate, we will hear that this is a local issue, a 
matter best left to home rule. But as Members who have sworn to uphold 
the Constitution, I would remind my colleagues that article I, section 
8 states that ``Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive 
legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District.''
  The Constitution requires that we watch closely the power we have 
delegated, in this case to the District of Columbia. Since the District 
is a national city, it should be a reflection of our Nation's value 
system.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us should be troubled by this ruling.
  When a government agency tells a private organization it must accept 
behavior that violates its members' core beliefs, then every civic 
organization, service group, church, synagogue, and mosque is 
vulnerable to government interference. This so-called civil rights 
organization clearly does not have the best interests of our Nation's 
boys and young men at heart. Instead, its goal is to force a radical 
political agenda on a private civic group.
  While ostensibly advancing the virtue of ``tolerance,'' the 
commission has approved only one politically correct viewpoint, 
determining that all other beliefs must be excluded or penalized, in 
this case.
  The decision of the commission runs counter to our most basic 
liberties and, as such, must be stopped. My amendment would prohibit 
the District of Columbia from enforcing the commission's decision by 
preventing funds from being spent to do so, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply say that in the discussion of this body's 
control and authority over the District of Columbia, it is clearly 
pointed out, not only in the home rule statute, but in the very 
Constitution itself. This body is afforded the obligation and 
authority, according to the Constitution, to effectively be the city 
council of the District of Columbia. So, whether we vote on Federal 
funds or local funds, every Member that votes on these issues votes as 
a Member of the legislative body overseeing all matters whatsoever 
according to the Constitution in this area.
  This is not an issue of home rule. We do not have the authority, 
according to the Constitution, to govern on issues regarding the city 
of Atlanta or the city of San Francisco or the city of Tucson, Arizona. 
We do have constitutional authority over all legislative matters 
whatsoever in regard to the District of Columbia; and Members should 
stand up, recognize their constitutional authority, and recognize that 
all groups are under assault here with regard to the values that they 
hold dear.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that all Members would support my 
amendment, would allow the Boy Scouts of America to determine the 
criteria for their members and their leaders, and allow them to freely 
associate without doing any damage whatsoever to the community when, in 
fact, the opposite is true. They strive to make the country and their 
community a better place to live, with all of the activities in which 
they endeavor.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Hostettler's 
amendment--a vote in support of the Boy Scouts of America.
  The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue--and they said that to 
force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual troop leaders would violate 
their right to free association and would dilute the Scout's message. 
We must not threaten the Scouts' constitutional freedoms that were 
clearly upheld by the Supreme Court.
  The process of appealing this ruling is costing the Scouts valuable 
dollars each day that could be better used to benefit the lives of 
young men--Young men who are being taught values such as duty to God 
and country, honor, respect, and community service.
  We must send a message that Congress will uphold the full benefits of 
freedom of association, and that the Scouts, a private organization, 
may continue to define their own leadership and promote core American 
values that have been taught to children for over a century. I urge my 
fellow Members to vote in favor of the Hostettler amendment.


    Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                               Hostettler

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Norton to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Hostettler:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment, 
     insert ``Federal'' before ``funds''.

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this House has just done a historic act. 
For the first time, it has broken through the prejudice against gay men 
and lesbians on this floor. It is an extraordinary moment. It is even 
more important than recognizing the local prerogatives of the District 
of Columbia.
  I am asking this House to do with respect to my amendment exactly as 
we have just voted very decisively to do in the last vote. My amendment 
would disallow any Federal funds for the enforcement of the provision 
and decision of the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission. Only 
local funds could be used. That is what we have just voted. Please be 
consistent.
  Mr. Chairman, this was not a knee-jerk vote by the District of 
Columbia Human Rights Commission. They submitted a very well-reasoned, 
74-page decision which I think they can reasonably argue is very much 
consistent with the Supreme Court decision on this very issue. The 
Supreme Court says that gay men cannot interfere with the message of 
the Boy Scouts. The District of Columbia found that the gay men here 
were not strong activists of the kind that the Supreme Court recognized 
as interfering with the message of the Boy Scouts. Let us suppose that 
the District of Columbia

[[Page H6008]]

is wrong. If the District is wrong, the Boy Scouts of America, as I 
speak, are pursuing their remedy. They are pursuing it because that 
decision was appealed on July 19. Therefore, they are now in the 
courts.
  If we proceed, we are not only undermining the local courts of the 
District of Columbia, which, by the way, are Federal courts, but we are 
undermining the independence of the Federal judiciary as well, because 
this decision is based on a decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States; and this matter will ultimately find its way there, if it has 
been incorrectly decided by the District's Human Rights Commission. We 
interfere with the independence of the judiciary when we, the Congress 
of the United States, decide that a politically unpopular decision has 
been made and, therefore, we will politically intervene into a court 
decision. We do not want to do that. We do not want to go there, 
especially not now.
  So long as this matter is not settled, we ought to let it be, because 
there will always be another time to settle it. Suppose we do not like 
what the local courts find. We could come back and overturn the local 
courts. If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court finds that what the 
District of Columbia has done is consistent with Supreme Court 
decisions, then we will be barred and ought to be barred.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment piles on yet another 
constitutional violation, because the Congress of the United States is, 
in fact, imposing its own one-sided views on a matter that is of 
constitutional import. We cannot do that. Justice Scalia himself wrote, 
``The government may not regulate speech based on hostility or 
favoritism towards the underlying message expressed.'' If it is the 
underlying message that you object to, you are in violation of what 
Justice Scalia has said, because the amendment is not viewpoint-
neutral. My amendment, on the other hand, gets the Federal Government 
out of this messy business, leaving only the District of Columbia to do 
what it is doing anyway, which is responding to the appeal.
  This matter will not be settled by my amendment. It still leaves to 
us, ultimately, if the local courts are wrong, the ability to come back 
next year and overturn it so long as the Supreme Court does not say 
that that amendment was correct. Leave this be. Vote as we have just 
voted on the prior amendment. Do not cast another vote against people 
who are gay just because they are gay.
  Mr. KERNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hostettler 
amendment, and I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. KERNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KERNS. Mr. Chairman, the Boy Scouts of America is an institution 
that since 1910 has been creating leaders and instilling principles to 
guide young men down the right path as they form their basic values and 
grow into adults. The scout oath and the scout law serve as the 
foundation of this organization's beliefs, including duty to God and 
country.
  In June of 2000, the United States upheld the Boy Scouts' standing 
that as a private organization it has a right to set its own standards 
for membership.
  We know that some have tried to force their views on the Scouts and 
confuse the true mission of the scouting organization. This effort has 
taken place right here in our Nation's Capitol. Since the Supreme 
Court's ruling, the D.C. Human Rights Commission has ignored the 
decision and acted directly to the contrary.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to visit a variety of Boy 
Scout events in west central Indiana and I have talked with scouts; and 
I have had the honor of presenting the Eagle Scout Badge to a young man 
in Tippecanoe County. I have always been impressed by these young 
scouts. My son is a scout. I am impressed by their enthusiasm, their 
devotion, and their sense of pride in their communities. That is why I 
am here on the floor today to stand with the Boy Scouts of America and 
oppose the efforts to undermine this outstanding organization.
  I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for his 
leadership on this issue in trying to correct this wrong. I encourage 
my colleagues to support his amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying amendment for two 
good reasons. On June 28, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the 
Boy Scouts of America have the constitutional right to block gays from 
becoming troop leaders. That is what they said. They are the law of the 
land. The Court ruled 5 to 4 that the New Jersey Supreme Court was 
wrong in forcing the Boy Scouts to accept James Dale, who was fired 
from the organization when the organization learned of his sexual 
orientation.
  The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization which does not 
receive public funds. They have consistently won court judgments; and 
they have won, in part, because they do not receive taxpayer money.
  Last September, September 13, 2000, this House voted 362 to 12 to 
reject an effort to revoke the 80-year-old Federal charter of the Boy 
Scouts of America because the group excludes gays. I believe it would 
be inconsistent to challenge the decision of the Supreme Court of this 
land.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a former Scout, and my son is a Scout. I am amazed 
that we are debating this matter as part of the D.C. appropriations 
bill.
  It is probably appropriate in the authorizing bill, or perhaps maybe 
not even there, since it has always been the majority party's view that 
local communities, those closest to the people, should make decisions; 
that they know best, and that we should not, as a Federal government, 
intervene in these local matters.
  But nonetheless, absent a reversal of the Supreme Court's viewpoint, 
I do not know why we are in this at all. I would hope that we could 
move on with the more important business of the Nation, which at this 
time makes this matter a pretty small issue, given tens of thousands of 
our troops being arrayed across the world, to be here now debating back 
and forth a decision by the Human Rights Commission here in the 
District.
  Maybe some want to be a Member of the D.C. City Council, and I know 
that there are elections coming up, and perhaps they want to offer 
themselves.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) to amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
       Page 55, after line 15, insert the following new section:

       Sec. ____. No funds appropriated in this Act may be made 
     available to any person or entity that violates the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment that 
would prohibit anybody from getting any grants under this bill who has 
violated the Buy American Act. It has been added on to all the other 
appropriations bills.
  I want to just take one second and commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah). As a representative of a large city, I think 
he has

[[Page H6009]]

shown and demonstrated leadership on our side, and I want to commend 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who has worked very hard 
and brought forward a very good bill.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant), we have examined his amendment and we have no objection to 
it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


   Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. 
                               Hostetler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) to amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the underlying 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 243, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 353]

                               AYES--173

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--243

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Abercrombie
     Doolittle
     Hunter
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Obey
     Owens
     Peterson (MN)
     Rush
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Watson (CA)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1355

  Messrs. GOODLATTE, DUNCAN, SAXTON, REGULA, Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. 
GILCHREST, CLEMENT, SHADEGG, MASCARA and GREENWOOD changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. KELLY, Mr. GREEN of Texas, Mrs. BONO and Ms. TAUSCHER changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 262, 
noes 152, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 354]

                               AYES--262

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly

[[Page H6010]]


     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--152

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Abercrombie
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Hunter
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Obey
     Owens
     Peterson (MN)
     Rush
     Serrano
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Watson (CA)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1403

  Mr. PASTOR changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 2002''.

  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Isakson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2944) 
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, 
2002, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 245, he 
reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that rule, back to the House 
with further sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 327, 
nays 88, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 355]

                               YEAS--327

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman

[[Page H6011]]


     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--88

     Akin
     Armey
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Berry
     Blunt
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Everett
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hunter
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Moran (KS)
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Riley
     Roemer
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Watkins (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Dunn
     Lewis (GA)
     Meeks (NY)
     Owens
     Peterson (MN)
     Rangel
     Rush
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Watson (CA)
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1423

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin and Mr. FOSSELLA changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 355 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________