[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 168 (Thursday, December 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H9045-H9053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2944, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2002

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the 
House, I call up the conference report accompanying 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
December 5, 2001, at page H8914.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to bring to the House the conference report for H.R. 
2944, the fiscal year 2002, the District of Columbia Appropriations 
Act. When I took the helm of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations in January, I said I wanted 
to be a partner with the District of Columbia as we jointly developed 
an agenda that promotes the continued renaissance of the city. Our 
subcommittee held several hearings covering a broad range of issues 
that I believe were tremendous assets as we crafted the bill. Our focus 
then, as it is now, was on economic development, education, and public 
safety, and they remain my focus, as they will in the future.

                              {time}  1645

  I believe this conference agreement reflects this commitment and the 
hard work of each and every member of the Subcommittee on the District 
of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations. Their collective and 
individual dedication and expertise is to be commended.
  As I wrap up the first year as chairman of the subcommittee, I want 
to thank two of my colleagues in particular. First, I wish to thank the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for all the great work he has 
done as a member of the committee from Pennsylvania.
  We have worked, I think, very well in this process. There have been 
open channels of communication. His advice and counsel have been very 
valuable to me, and I think truly we have a better bill because of him.
  I also want to thank the District of Columbia and the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). She is a tireless advocate 
for the city, and the District's residents are lucky to have her. She 
has been very open and candid with me, and has been a very valuable 
source of information.
  Before I move the bill, I would like to thank the many staff members: 
Migo Miconi and Mary Porter of the subcommittee staff, and also Jeff 
Onizuk and Candra Symonds from my own staff; Tom Forhan from the 
minority staff has been a great help, and William Miles of Mr. Fattah's 
staff, as well. There have been many long days and long nights, and 
their dedication and professionalism has been something worthy of a lot 
of praise.
  I want to also salute Mary Porter, who has been staffing this bill 
for 40 years. Mary is behind me here somewhere.
  I believe this is a fiscally responsible conference report, and I 
will not go into all the details; there are many. But I can tell the 
Members this: We were all, I believe, very pleased with what did 
develop here. It is a bipartisan effort, and one that myself and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) have worked to bring about.
  I just want to emphasize that this legislation does eliminate 
approximately half of the general provisions contained in last year's 
legislation, and it does some things that simplify things, I believe, 
for us in the future.
  Obviously, the events of 9-11 were a concern for all of us, and D.C., 
outside of New York City, was the most focused-upon city in the country 
because of the terrorist attacks.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a chart relating to H.R. 2944, 
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2002:

[[Page H9046]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06DE01.001



[[Page H9047]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH06DE01.002



[[Page H9048]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, who has led us to this moment. We 
have a much-improved product from previous years, and it is because of 
the leadership that the gentleman from Michigan has put forward in this 
effort.
  I want to also thank a number of the people on the staff on our side: 
Tom Forhan and William Miles on my personal staff. I would also like to 
thank Migo Miconi and Mary Porter on the chairman's staff, and also 
Jeff Onizuk on the personal staff of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Chairman Knollenberg), who have all played a very important role in 
this bill.
  This is not a perfect bill, and there are things in it that we would 
like to improve even further. But I would have to say that we have done 
a very good job in terms of addressing many of the concerns, and I note 
that the mayor of the city has had very kind things to say about the 
work of the conference committee.
  I would like to also thank his staff, and in particular, Sabrina 
McNeil, who worked very hard to make sure that we understood the needs 
of the District.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), the longest-serving member of this 
subcommittee.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I volunteered to stay on this committee 
because I think, of all the areas in which Congress can improve, it is 
in Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital.
  We have made great strides, and Mr. Speaker, the chairmen have made 
great strides. But for the first time since I have been on the 
committee, I am not going to vote for this bill with some good things 
in it.
  Mr. Speaker, I speak, I think, from authority. I was chairman on 
authorization for the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services 
and Education, and forwarded the legislation to President Clinton on 
IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
  For 5 years I worked to take money out of lawyers' hands and pockets 
and shift it to children. We were able to save over $10 million a year, 
and instead of going to lawyers, it went to hire special education 
teachers. It set forth new programs for special education. It worked.
  In one setting, the chairman totally wiped out 5 years of everything 
that I have worked for. Am I upset? Yes, especially since it was staff-
driven. Who is supposed to control this Chamber, the staff or the 
Members?
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say one lawyer in D.C. earned $1.4 million 
suing the city of D.C. over special education; a firm, $5 million. 
Those are just two individuals.
  I want to say I have spent my life working for children and getting 
the money down. I have been through no less than 20 hearings on this 
particular issue, from when I was in the subcommittee on authorization, 
since I listened to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) who ran 
hearings this year, to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), to the 
rest of it. I cannot tell the Members my contempt on the outcome of 
this issue.
  I am not going to speak for the full 5 minutes, since there are a lot 
of people trying to catch planes. But I state again my opposition to 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the 
floor today. This will be the first District of Columbia Appropriations 
Act I will vote against since I came to serve on the Committee.
  I want to be clear, it is an honor to serve on the Appropriations 
Committee and especially the District of Columbia Subcommittee, where I 
am currently the longest active serving member. In addition, I commend 
Chairman Knollenberg for his leadership on this committee. In his first 
year as a Cardinal he has proven up to the difficult task of shaping an 
appropriations bill. For the last few years, I have resided here in the 
District and have seen first hand the problems that citizens here face 
in dealing with their own city government. I am pleased to have had the 
honor to work on this committee during what is truly the ``rebirth'' of 
the District's financial condition.
  When I came to the committee, the District was in financial ruin. 
Congress left no choice but to create the D.C. Control Board to oversee 
the city's budget to help bring order to the budget of the District of 
Columbia. I am pleased that the budget before us today was the sole 
responsibility of the elected officials of the District. Working 
together Congress and city officials have created a good budget that 
balances the needs of the people of the District with the financial 
constraints facing all governmental bodies.
  This $5.3 billion conference agreement provides new money for 
education and public safety--including public and charter schools, 
college tuition aid, a new court charged to protect abused children, 
emergency preparedness and ex-offender supervision. It includes a 
provision that is critical to public safety in the District, $500,000 
for the repair of the D.C. Fireboat, the John Glenn. This historic 
fireboat has served this city well for many years but is in need of 
repair. In total, this bill will help the people of the District in 
many ways.


                           SPEC ED ATTYS FEES

  Yet, with all that is in this agreement, I can not, in good 
conscience, vote for this bill. Since 1998, the D.C. Appropriations Act 
has carried a provision limiting the amount of money D.C. Public 
Schools (DCPS) will pay to special education attorneys. This provision 
restricted the amount of money lawyers could be reimbursed for the 
representation of children under IDEA. In this bill today, we will vote 
to remove this restriction.
  Let me state for the record, I believe a yes vote will reward trial 
attorneys with millions of additional dollars at the expense of the 
special education needs and programs for the children of the District 
of Columbia. Moreover, we were informed by the District that many of 
these fees were excessive. Before the caps, an attorney made $1.4 
million in fees in 1 year suing the District of Columbia 
schools. Another law firm billed over $5 million in a single year to 
the District of Columbia schools. Submission of a variety of 
questionable expenses, including flowers, ski trips, and even a trip to 
New Orleans ostensibly made to scout out private schools far from the 
District that might be able to accommodate special needs students.

  The reason we put reasonable caps on these attorneys fees is so the 
money will go into education. This cap was, and continues to be 
reasonable. An average citizen working 40 hour weeks would earn 
$300,000 a year, a rate which is entirely adequate, even in the 
District of Columbia. Our goal and our achievement since 1998 was to 
help the District of Columbia schools and children. In this effort we 
have been eminently successful.
  Since we instituted the cap the city has spent about $3.5 million per 
year in attorney's fees. This has resulted in savings of $10 million a 
year to continue the good works of the District's Special Education 
services. The DCPS has used this money to hire new special education 
attorneys and create special education programs to help the children of 
the district.
  Specifically DCPS has: Created almost 1,000 new placements within the 
public schools for special education students; arranged for the funding 
of 1,614 additional placements through the Weighted Student Formula for 
the 2001-2002 school year; reduced the number of children awaiting 
initial assessments from over 2,000 to less than 200; reduced the 
backlog of hearing requests from 900 to 20; facilitated understanding 
and communication through the development of several concise well-
written documents detailing the special education process and published 
proposed revisions in municipal regulation in support of the special 
education process; held two citywide Child Find fairs, which are state 
level functions that had not been conducted for nearly five years. 
These fairs provide for developmental screening in order to identify 
children who have specific learning disorders; held training for new 
teachers and veteran teachers to assist them in the use of the 
automated SETS database that is the backbone of the delivery of 
services to children with special needs; participated in a yearlong 
Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process with the Department of 
Education's Office of Special Education Programs with the support of 14 
schools; implemented the proven effective Fast Forward and Failure Free 
Reading programs to promote reading among children who are at risk of 
being non-readers; and made monthly training available for new teachers 
to increase their understanding of the special education process and 
held system-wide training to expand the awareness of special education.
  DCPS has done all this with money that would have gone to trial 
lawyers instead of these good programs and opportunities. I would 
challenge anyone opposed to this cap to explain to me how cutting these 
programs will help special education children; how spending millions 
more for attorneys will help our teachers educate our children.
  Opponents to this cap contend that this provision keeps children from 
being represented. However, no one has ever shown evidence that any 
child in D.C. is not receiving adequate, quality representation. 
Furthermore, I

[[Page H9049]]

would question the values of any trial lawyer who is unwilling to 
represent a child in a special education proceeding because they would 
only be paid $300,000 a year. That is the real issue. The lawyers are 
here telling us that if we don't allow them unlimited expenses and 
fees, paid for directly from the District's budget they will not 
continue to represent the children of the district. This callous 
position is beyond my comprehension, and I cannot in good conscience 
support a bill which endorses it.
  That these trial lawyers could look into the face of parents of a 
special needs child and turn them away from service because the lawyer 
can not take more than $150 an hour from the District Public School 
budget is appalling. That is the position we vote for today my friends. 
That is the position taken by the conference. The only people who were 
hurt by the cap were the trial lawyers who charged millions to the 
school district. The only people helped are the children, the 
schoolteachers, the principals, the Superintendent, the parents and 
ultimately the people of the District of Columbia.
  Because we will not protect those teachers and children from the 
trial lawyers, I can not support this bill. Next year, we will revisit 
the issue and I hope, no I pray, that we have not irreparably harmed 
the special education children and programs in the District of Columbia 
Public Schools.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I would like to thank those who have contributed to the bill.
  I thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) for his great patience and efforts every single 
year to get my bill through here. He has been extraordinary in 
understanding that this is a city we are working with.
  I thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
who not only does his appropriation work to a fare-thee-well, but never 
forgets to have respect for self-government and the right of D.C. 
residents to vote.
  I want to especially thank this year's chairman, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for the wonderfully cooperative and 
collegial spirit he has given to our work; his strong interest in the 
city; the way he has immersed himself in the issues of the city and in 
the facts and programs of the city.
  I am particularly grateful to the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), who is a member known for his mastery of 
complex urban issues, especially finances and schools. We felt 
particularly lucky to have the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) 
as the ranking member, inasmuch as he led his own city, Philadelphia, 
through precisely the kind of recovery we have had to go through. He 
was an architect of the control board there in the reconstruction of 
his own city, Philadelphia. He has an instinctive and encyclopedic 
understanding of cities in general, and of the District in particular. 
We feel very lucky to have him here.
  Before I proceed, if I could have Members' indulgence for my remarks 
on this budget, I feel compelled to put on the Record what we are going 
through, and to indicate the great pain this House has put my city 
through this year and puts us through every year.
  For those here for the first time, I always warn them they may feel 
like they are going through an out-of-body experience. Many have come 
out of State legislature and now somebody is telling them to look at 
the budget of what amounts to a State, somebody else's budget; to ask 
them to vote on a local budget. It is beneath them, it really is. I am 
going to ask Members to vote for it and try to understand that that is 
what the Congress makes us do.
  But I want to tell this House that it is almost Christmas, and the 
District of Columbia has not been able to spend a single cent of its 
budget because this House has just gotten around to spending its money. 
I wonder how many would be left standing if their State, and this is 
the functional equivalent of a State, could not spend any of its money 
for 3 months into the budget year? I ask Members to put themselves, for 
a change, into the position of the city I represent.
  With all of the plaudits I want to offer today, I want to take the 
time, because I have a remedy for this and it is important for me to 
put this on the Record. It happens year after year. This is just the 
worst of it, because it is Christmas. On October 1 we should have had a 
budget, and it should have been before then. We passed the budget in 
June.
  I have a way to correct this, Mr. Chairman. It is a budget autonomy 
bill that would still let this House put all their attachments on it, 
do all the things to the District that they will not let anybody do to 
their districts; but at least they would say, when the District passes 
its budget, as much of it as they pass, that they can now go ahead and 
spend their own money.
  These people cannot even forecast. They make mistakes all the time 
because their budget has to be done 18 months ahead of everybody else's 
budget. D.C. is terribly handicapped this year because there has been a 
war, and so other cities, our neighboring cities, Maryland and 
Virginia, are now in the process of taking the surplus; and we have a 
bigger surplus than Maryland or Virginia, and using it to shore up the 
deficits that have been created by the recession, problems that have 
come up unexpectedly because of September 11.

  Do Members know what happened to the surplus of the District of 
Columbia? It falls to the bottom line because the District of Columbia 
is treated like a Federal agency. We let it fall to the bottom of the 
line of a Federal agency because it goes back into the Federal 
Treasury.
  There is no reason not to let people who have been prudent in using 
their own money, saving their money, use their money in time of 
emergency. That is the demeaning position in which Members put the city 
that I happen to represent. Members must free us from this problem. Let 
us take care of ourselves by using our own money.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a bill for budget autonomy which still lets 
Members put their own bills in and change the budget of the District of 
Columbia, but it would let us spend our own money when our own budget 
is passed. I have a budget autonomy bill, and I am going to beg this 
House to next year pass that bill.
  I want to say to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the 
Republican co-chair of my committee, how much I appreciate the 
principal things she has done in cosponsoring that bill with me.
  Mr. Speaker, to move on to the budget itself, this is such a 
significant budget for the District of Columbia. It is the first budget 
on its own without a control board. Yet, in very many ways, it is the 
most successful in many years. Less contentious. We have had disputes 
here and there. We have all found ways to settle them like ladies and 
gentlemen.
  I want to focus on just three issues, among the dozens in this bill:
  First is the way in which the committee has allowed the budget 
numbers put forward by the District of Columbia to be the budget for 
the District of Columbia. I want to thank this Congress for the funds 
for a new Family Court Division, and I want to have a brief discussion 
on breakthroughs in and unacceptable home rule losses.
  First, let me thank the committee for making sure that the District's 
own budget numbers became the budget numbers in this bill. The Congress 
has no expertise to deal with the budget priorities in anybody else's 
bill. There were some concerns at first about how the District and the 
mayor had agreed to certain kinds of attachments to the budget.
  When all was said and done, people finally understood: It is not for 
us to say. If the Mayor and the City Council have agreed, let the Mayor 
and the City Council do their own budget, as long as it is balanced.
  Second, let me go to the family court. There is $24 million in extra 
money in this bill for the first revision of D.C.'s Family Court 
Division in 30 years. I am the coauthor of the authorizing bill, with 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  I want to thank him for working with me on the bill. He and I had 
many disputes, but we simply worked them out. But I think he deserves 
great praise today, because that additional $24 million would not be in 
this bill if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) had not gotten the 
extra money to put in this bill.
  I want to thank him both for his coauthorship of the bill and for 
working to get the money in the bill. That, of

[[Page H9050]]

course, is important, because we have read about the great problems we 
have with foster care; typical of foster care problems around the 
country, but we know about them in the District of Columbia.

                              {time}  1700

  The District, of course, appreciates the $16 million for emergency 
preparedness in this bill. That is an important start. But for all the 
help those funds bring, I do want to remind this House that you have 
understood that you should give extra money to the Capitol Police 
because they are first responders of a kind. But I want to remind the 
Congress that you really have only one first responder. You have only 
one fire department and you have one big city police department. That 
is the District of Columbia. We have very little money in the House 
bill.
  The District is vastly underprepared for any emergency in the 
District of Columbia that involves the Federal presence. But I want to 
remind you that your first responder for this House, for this Capitol, 
for the White House, and for the entire Federal presence is the 
District of Columbia first responders. And while I appreciate the start 
we have with the $16 million, this is money that is urgently needed if 
you are serious about emergency preparedness.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must speak about an important breakthrough 
and unacceptable attachments on this bill. This is a huge breakthrough 
in this bill with the commonsense decision of 41 Republicans to join 
Democrats in allowing the District to use its own funds for 
implementing its own domestic partnership bill. I want to thank my 
friends on both sides of the aisle for this expression of 
bipartisanship.
  The limited and moderated legislation allows partners to sign on to 
the city's health plan of the partner, at the full expense of the 
partner, with no public expense. It is especially important to mention 
it this year because it is compassionate and necessary at a time when 
there are there are already 40 million people without health insurance, 
many being added as I speak, of course, because there are such a large 
number of people with AIDS and with infections climbing every day.
  Having praised the House for that wonderful breakthrough, let me 
speak about two unacceptable losses.
  I appreciate that we have eliminated some of the busy work for police 
on the needle exchange private program in the District. But barring the 
city from spending its own money to keep AIDS from being transmitted 
throughout the community, especially where it is growing most, among 
women and children, is the functional equivalent of a death sentence, 
and this House ought to understand it. It adds to the incursion into 
our business the notion of a life-and-death issue, and it shows that 
the House is refusing to value the human life involved, even though 
every reputable scientific authority has advised and 115 localities 
have indeed allowed these programs.
  I just put the House on notice, I will simply not give up until we 
are allowed to use our own money to save the lives of our own residents 
the way other Americans are.
  Finally, we have done something in this bill that we should be 
especially ashamed of. We have said, look, D.C., you can spend your own 
money on lobbying anything you want to lobby on. You want to lobby on 
some more money for this or some more money for that, go ahead. But you 
do not spend one red dime to lobby for your own rights. Not a dime to 
lobby for statehood and not a dime to lobby for voting rights.
  My friend, this Congress has just failed, at least this House has, 
the test of credibility of all that rhetoric of the past few months on 
the fight for freedom; and a way of life central to our way of life, 
surely central to our freedom, is full voting representation in the 
Congress for all taxpaying Americans and full democracy and equal 
treatment as that of other States. Be on notice of that one, too. We 
will not rest until the ban on spending our own money raised from our 
own taxpayers to pursue our own rights is lifted.
  With that I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member 
for their long and great patience until we finally arrived here to the 
best bill in many years.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) a member of the authorizing committee.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference report. Let me just say I want to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the chairman of the full committee. I think 
he has done a very good job in shepherding this through the House and 
through a long conference.
  For the record, it is sad that the city has had to wait until 
December to get their appropriations. It should not have to work that 
way. This body passed the bill September 25. We were ready to go to 
conference the next day. It was the Senate, the other body, that held 
up this legislation and has kept this long-protracted discourse before 
we could reach agreement on the conference report.
  I would also remind my colleagues that just about 3 or 4 years ago, 
we passed a D.C. Revitalization Act. This was part of the Balanced 
Budget Act. In that, as we were putting that together, we offered the 
city the opportunity to do away with the annual appropriations for the 
city. In place of that, we replaced the city's responsibilities for 
felony prisoners, for the court system, and took care of what had been 
longstanding obligations that they owed in other areas, over a billion 
dollars in some cases; and in place of that, to do away with the annual 
appropriations.
  In taking care of the fastest growing part of the budget and 
basically moving those responsibilities to the Federal Government, we 
felt you would not need the annual appropriations. But the city 
understandably was reluctant to part with that because they knew there 
would come a time that they would need additional Federal dollars and 
did not want to do the annual appropriations.
  The gentlewoman from the District of Columbias' (Ms. Norton) object 
here is a noble cause, and we ought to look very closely at how we can 
do that. Every other city in America, when they pass their budget it 
goes right into operation, and if the Congress has a problem with it we 
can step forward and say we have a problem with it. But under this 
protracted procedure, we end up ironically hurting a city that has a 
limited tax base as it is.
  This legislation is pretty good. It fully funds the D.C. Scholarship 
Act. This allows city residents to go to State universities at in-State 
tuition costs, and get the same kind of deal that people in other 
States get. I think this is very important for the city.
  The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) said the 
District of Columbia Juvenile Court revisions are very, very important. 
We have worked long and hard together to bring that. I think, by and 
large, this goes further in respecting District of Columbia home rule 
than many other appropriations bills that have come before this body.
  If we want democracy in this city to succeed, however, we should not 
continue to second-guess the mayor and the council. I disagree with 
some of the things that the council has done, as I do with things my 
home city council and county board of supervisors do. But if we want 
democracy to flourish, we have to give them the responsibility; and 
that means not constantly looking over their back. I urge adoption of 
this.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I thank the gentleman for his comments. The issue of budget autonomy 
is one that I support, and I am the cosponsor of the bill, but it is 
also a matter of having the city be able to reach the revenues that are 
here. The city is prohibited from taxing sales that happen on Federal 
property. It cannot go after suburbanites who earn wages in the city, 
because we prohibit the city from, as other cities, mine and others are 
able, to attach those wage earners.
  So if we are going to talk about the fact that the city has a limited 
tax base, we need to understand why it is limited. It is limited 
because of our own actions.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who is the chairman of the 
authorizing committee.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.

[[Page H9051]]

  Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my comments by thanking the chairman, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) and the D.C. 
appropriations subcommittee staff, as well as Senator Mary Landrieu and 
the Senate staff who worked tirelessly and in a very open manner in 
developing this year's appropriations bill for the District of 
Columbia.
  This budget marks a turning point for the District. It is the first 
budget approved by Congress since the District of Columbia Financial 
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, known as the 
Control Board, ended its tenure. And it is truly a home rule budget as 
it protects many of the spending priorities of Mayor Williams and the 
city council.
  The appropriators have done an admirable job in providing responsible 
oversight while generally resisting the urge to micromanage the city 
government.
  Next year we hope to take this a step further as the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I will continue to push our 
bill to return a local autonomy budget all to the city. The District of 
Columbia should not have to wait until December to have its budget 
passed by Congress. That bill would also safeguard the powers of the 
chief financial office, and I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for including in this conference report a 
temporary extension of the CFO's powers until July 1. That would give 
us all the more time to ensure that the CFO does not become a paper 
tiger.
  The bill provides $17 million for the very successful District of 
Columbia tuition access program which gives District of Columbia 
students the opportunity to get a high-quality university education at 
virtually any public university in the United States. I am also happy 
that the legislation allows for the first time the District of Columbia 
to use its own money on domestic partners for benefits on city 
government employees.
  The bill reserves more than $24 million to reform the city's Family 
Court and Child and Family Services Agency, an effort that many of us 
who care about the city's children have worked on long and hard.
  Let me point out a few other highlights: $16 million to improve 
emergency preparedness; $2.5 million for the innovative literacy 
programs in the District of Columbia schools; $2 million for Foods and 
Friends charity; $2 million for the expansion of St. Coletta's, which 
does such wonderful work training mentally retarded and disabled 
youngsters and adults; $500,000 to promote high-tech education at the 
city's Southeastern University; and 300,000 toward the newly 
constituted Criminal Justice Coordinated Council, which will foster 
cooperation among the various Federal and local criminal justice 
agencies that operate in the district.
  Finally, the appropriations bill greatly reduces the amount of money 
the District government must hold in reserve from $120 million in 
fiscal year 2002 to $70 million in fiscal year 2003. This is a great 
leap forward because it will allow the city to use more of its money 
for providing services to its citizens.
  Overall, this is a good appropriations bill. The gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), when he took the reins, said he wanted to 
come up with as clean a bill as possible. He has come very close to 
that. He made clear that he wanted to produce a clean budget, devoid of 
the many troublesome riders that have so disturbed city residents in 
the past. He and the committee have accomplished that to a remarkable 
degree, and I think this is a budget bill we can all be proud of. I 
urge a favorable vote.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member 
Fattah for their hard work on this bill, they have given us the best 
bill in years. However, while the bill is greatly improved I cannot in 
good conscience support the gratuitous and mean spirited restrictions 
in continues to impose on taxpayers of our nation's capitol.
  Over 94% of the budget that we're voting on today is City tax revenue 
locally raised. It's one thing for Members to decry the use of their 
constituents' tax dollars for purposes they find distasteful, but to 
subject local DC taxpayers to the politics of far flung districts is 
simply disgraceful.
  What's worse is that the people who we are pushing around in this 
bill, don't have a vote in this House and under this bill they cannot 
use even their own locally raised taxes to promote their right to 
representation in this House.
  I am particularly concerned about the rider forbidding the use of 
local funds for needle exchanges. Washington has the highest rate of 
HIV/AIDS in the nation. Approximately one-third of reported AIDS cases 
occurred among injection drug users, their sexual partners and 
children.
  Former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, former Secretary of Health 
and Human Services, Donna Shalala, the CDC, and the AMA are among the 
individuals and organizations that have endorsed needle exchange as an 
effective strategy to fight the spread of HIV/AIDS.
  Needle exchanges exist all over this country and nobody is suggesting 
that we alter federal law to forbid them. We are attacking one city's--
our Capital city's--efforts to reduce the spread of AIDS and leaving 
cities in the rest of the country to do what they think is right and 
effective in fighting that health epidemic.
  I cannot support the continuation of this policy, in spite of the 
progress we have made in the rest of the bill.
  I again thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their hard work but 
I am voting no on this conference report.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank all who have been 
involved, but mainly the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will close with a very quick comment. This conference 
report is a good bipartisan bill that reflects all the priorities that 
the ranking member and I worked together to make sure that were in the 
bill. It fully funds every penny of the city's budget. It ensures that 
all Federal obligations are met.
  I would just say that, having been the chairman of this committee, it 
has been a great experience particularly in terms of the city. The 
response I have gotten from the folks that run this city, the 
leadership, the residents, they have all been very kind to me in 
helping me develop this legislation and helping us bring about what I 
believe is a good bill.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us includes a $2 
million earmark for an organization whose Executive Director, according 
to the attached Washington Post article, was sentenced in 1995 for 
taking over $4,000 from the Jewish Community Center of Greater 
Washington. He was given a suspended five year prison sentence and 
ordered to perform several hundred hours of community service. He now 
draws an annual salary of $183,000 from Food and Friends, an 
organization that is supposed to be spending its money providing meals 
to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
  I am very concerned about the $2 million earmark of taxpayer money. 
This special $2 million carve out is for this one organization, and is 
not subject to competition. No other groups, including groups who may 
offer much better services or who may be much more efficient, were not 
allowed an opportunity to compete for these funds. There will also be 
little oversight and accountability of how this organization spends 
these funds.
  This special $2 million earmark was not requested by the city of the 
District of Columbia and it was not in the President's budget request. 
There will be little if any oversight of how this $2 million will be 
spent. I believe this is an inappropriate earmark and am troubled by 
it's inclusion. I was deeply disappointed that the Senate, even after 
being made aware of these concerns, decided to go along with putting 
this in the final bill. I had hoped that they would have allowed a 
competition for these funds, rather than earmarking them for one 
organization.
  I have also included a letter from a local AIDS advocacy organization 
in Washington that has expressed opposition to this special earmark of 
fund.
                                                    AIDS Coalition


                                             to Unleash Power,

                                Washington, DC, November 12, 2001.
     District of Columbia Appropriations Conference Committee,
     U.S. Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Conference Committee members: As a non-partisan HIV/
     AIDS advocacy organization, ACT UP Washington, DC has long

[[Page H9052]]

     fought for greater accountability in federal HIV/AIDS 
     spending. During the past several years, we have tracked 
     mounting incidences of waste, fraud and abuse of hard fought 
     for taxpayer dollars intended to combat HIV/AIDS, so that 
     similar transgressions never occur again.
       These efforts, thanks to the support of former 
     Representative Dr. Tom Coburn, and Senators Charles Grassley 
     and Max Baucus, have led to a commitment from the newly 
     confirmed Inspector General for the Department of Health and 
     Human Services to conduct audits of programs funded by the 
     Ryan White CARE Act. Senator Sessions has added his 
     leadership by calling for further federal auditing of HIV 
     prevention programs in the pending Labor-HHS Appropriations 
     Bill.
       We hope you agree that accountability, and oversight at the 
     local and federal levels are crucial components to insure 
     that federal dollars to alleviate the suffering of HIV/AIDS 
     patients are spent wisely and effectively. For this reason, 
     we have deepening concerns over the $2 million included in 
     the Chairman's mark to the DC Appropriations Bill, earmarked 
     for a DC AIDS charity, Food and Friends.
       Unlike other appropriations for DC area AIDS service 
     organizations allocated through competitive grants, this 
     earmark was never subject to the same, open process whereby 
     spending priorities are determined through the input and 
     needs of the community. This sets a terrible precedent, 
     whereby dozens, if not hundreds of other local charities will 
     now turn to Congress for their individual funding needs. 
     Furthermore, as a direct payment, this $2 million is not 
     subject to appropriate local and federal oversight 
     authorities.
       We therefore urge you to agree with the Senate DC 
     Appropriations Bill, and delete the $2 million earmark from 
     the final version.
       This is not to, in any way, disparage the important 
     services provided by Food and Friends, and the dedication of 
     its volunteers. It is worth noting, however, that the current 
     Executive Director of Food and Friends, Craig Shniderman, was 
     involved in an embezzlement scandal with his previous 
     employers at the Montgomery County Jewish Community Center. 
     Enclosed you will find the Washington Post article from 
     October 1995, in which Mr. Schniderman pleads guilty on a 
     charge of misappropriation of funds.
       It is, of course, encouraging to see ex-offenders like Mr. 
     Shniderman turn their lives around. According to Food and 
     Friends 990 tax forms for FY 2000 (available online at 
     www.guidestar.com), he earned $183,000.
       However, given the Executive Director's criminal record, 
     the lack of oversight or accountability, and no public input 
     into the allocation of these funds, it seems the wisest 
     choice for Congress would be to delete the $2 million earmark 
     in the final version of the DC Appropriations Bill.
       Thank you for your consideration.
                                                     Wayne Turner.
       Enclosure.

                [From the Washington Post, Oct. 2, 1995]

          Ex-Agency Head Sentenced in Theft From Jewish Center

       The former head of Montgomery County's Jewish Social 
     Services Agency has been ordered to serve six months of home 
     detention and 18 months of probation for taking nearly $4,000 
     from the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington.
       Former social services agency executive director Craig M. 
     Schniderman was charged with taking items from the Rockville 
     JCC gift shop from 1987 to 1993 and allowing the agency to be 
     billed for phony consulting services.
       The community center's former executive director, Lester I. 
     Kaplan, and three other JCC officials were ousted last summer 
     and accused of looting their agency of nearly $1 million as 
     it was struggling to provide services for elderly and 
     disabled members.
       Kaplan pleaded guilty last month to seven counts, including 
     theft and compiracy, and is scheduled to be sentenced today.
       Shniderman, who officials said was not aware of the 
     embezzlement scheme at the neighboring agency, pleaded guilty 
     Wednesday to a single count of misappropriation by a 
     fiduciary. He was given a suspended five-year prison term by 
     Circuit Court Judge Ann S. Harrington and ordered to perform 
     200 hours of community service.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because it 
strengthens programs that serve the residents and workers of the 
District of Columbia. The residents of the District deserve to have 
control over their local government and this bill takes the first steps 
in returning authority to the residents and elected officials of the 
District.
  This bill represents an improvement in the District of Columbia 
Appropriations bill over past years. It contains important resources 
for the city's health care system, brownfield remediation and local 
road repairs. It finally grants the District the autonomy to use its 
own funds to provide health benefits for domestic partners and improve 
access to health care services for District residents.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned because this bill does not allow 
the District to use its own funds for one of its highest public health 
priorities--the needle exchange program--to reduce the spread of HIV 
and AIDS.
  The needle exchange program has been endorsed by the Mayor of the 
District but for the past year the District has been prohibited from 
using local funds to implement it. Not only does this infringe on local 
autonomy, but it reduces access to a truly life-saving program.
  There have been several government reviews and hundreds of scientific 
studies all demonstrating that needle exchange programs are effective 
in reducing HIV transmission and do not encourage drug use. The 
American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, 
and other medical associations have all called for government support 
of needle exchange programs. My own hometown of New Haven has a needle 
exchange program that has proven to be highly successful in reducing 
the transmission of HIV/AIDS without increasing the number of drug 
users.
  The District of Columbia has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in the 
nation and it must be able to pursue an aggressive, targeted program. 
Currently, the District is the only city in the nation barred by 
federal law from investing its own locally raised tax dollars to 
support needle exchange programs.
  To continue to impair the District's ability to carry out a 
responsible HIV prevention program flies in the face of sound public 
health policy. Local health departments must be free to determine which 
public health interventions will best address their local problems--
including the District of Columbia. We cannot afford to turn our backs 
on something that can help us beat the AIDS epidemic.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin). Without objection, 
the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 302, 
noes 84, not voting 47, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 482]

                               YEAS--302

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler

[[Page H9053]]


     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--84

     Akin
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Berry
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Chabot
     Coble
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Israel
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kilpatrick
     LaHood
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Ramstad
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Smith (NJ)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield

                             NOT VOTING--47

     Ackerman
     Armey
     Baker
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bonior
     Cannon
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Deal
     Emerson
     Everett
     Flake
     Gallegly
     Green (TX)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hostettler
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Largent
     Lofgren
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oxley
     Pence
     Pitts
     Quinn
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Roukema
     Sessions
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (WA)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiberi
     Watkins (OK)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1737

  Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, GOODLATTE, PICKERING, and TURNER changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, for personal reasons I was 
unable to cast my vote for the District of Columbia Appropriations 
Conference Report (H.R. 2944). Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea''.
  Stated against:
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 482, 
D.C. Conference Report FY '02 Approprations. I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________