[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.''
____________________