[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.''
____________________