[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18616-18663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2587.

                              {time}  1121


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2587) making appropriations for the government of the 
District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in 
part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bereuter in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Tuesday, 
July 27, 1999, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendments printed in House Report 106-263 may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, shall be considered read, debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of 
     Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and 
     for other purposes, namely:
                TITLE I--FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS

                             FEDERAL FUNDS

              Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for a 
     program to be administered by the Mayor for District of 
     Columbia resident tuition support, subject to the enactment 
     of authorizing legislation for such program by Congress, 
     $17,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That such funds shall be used on behalf of eligible District 
     of Columbia residents to pay an amount based upon the 
     difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at 
     public institutions of higher education, usable at both 
     public and private institutions of higher education anywhere 
     within the United States: Provided further, That the awarding 
     of such funds shall be prioritized on the basis of a 
     resident's academic merit and such other factors as may be 
     authorized.

        Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create 
     incentives to promote the adoption of children in the 
     District of Columbia foster care system, $8,500,000: 
     Provided, That such funds shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2001 and shall be used in accordance with a 
     program established by the Mayor and the Council of the 
     District of Columbia and approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider my 
amendment out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?

[[Page 18617]]

  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered By Mr. Bilbray

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

       Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 106-263 offered by 
     Mr. Bilbray:
       Page 65, insert after line 24 the following:


            banning possession of tobacco products by minors

       Sec. 167. (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     individual under 18 years of age to possess any cigarette or 
     other tobacco product in the District of Columbia.
       (b) Exceptions.--
       (1) Possession in course of employment.--Subsection (a) 
     shall not apply with respect to an individual making a 
     delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in pursuance of 
     employment.
       (2) Participation in law enforcement operation.--Subsection 
     (a) shall not apply with respect to an individual possessing 
     products in the course of a valid, supervised law enforcement 
     operation.
       (c) Penalties.--Any individual who violates subsection (a) 
     shall be subject to the following penalties:
       (1) For any violation, the individual may be required to 
     perform community service or attend a tobacco cessation 
     program.
       (2) Upon the first violation, the individual shall be 
     subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.
       (3) Upon the second and each subsequent violation, the 
     individual shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 
     $100.
       (4) Upon the third and each subsequent violation, the 
     individual may have his or her driving privileges in the 
     District of Columbia suspended for a period of 90 consecutive 
     days.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply during fiscal 
     year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this year, I reintroduced an amendment to the D.C. bill 
to specifically address the issue that Washington, D.C. has been and 
continues to be a sanctuary for underaged consumption and possession of 
tobacco.
  While Washington, D.C. has endeavored to reform and transform itself 
as quickly as possible on many fronts, it has not addressed the issue 
that it continues to be the only jurisdiction within hundreds of miles 
of the Capitol still allowing underaged individuals to consume and 
possess tobacco products.
  I was intending, Mr. Chairman, to ask for a vote on this amendment. 
The amendment passed overwhelmingly last year and I think sent a clear 
message not only to Washington, D.C. that this is wrong and 
inappropriate but to every jurisdiction in the United States and 
especially to the children of this city and to the children of America, 
that minor's possession and use of tobacco is not acceptable to this 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this motion, and I intend to 
withdraw it because I have received, on July 27, a letter from Mayor 
Williams specifically committing to introducing legislation that seeks 
to prohibit teen tobacco use.
  I talked last night with the mayor, Mr. Chairman, and he personally 
committed to me that he will aggressively pursue this issue. He has 
stated that he thinks it is an outrage that Congress and Washington has 
not addressed this issue in the past and overlooked this issue, 
something that all of us could have done a long time ago.
  The mayor agrees with me that, if we are going to stand up and point 
fingers at businesses and individuals who continue to encourage 
individuals to smoke, then we have an obligation to point a finger at 
ourselves and say even those of us in Congress and those of us in 
Washington have not done our fair share of addressing this hideous 
problem.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we give the new mayor of 
Washington, D.C. a chance to initiate this legislation locally and that 
we hold this amendment in abeyance for this year and give them the 
chance to do the right thing that should have been done a long time 
ago.
  I make a personal commitment that I will work with the mayor and the 
city council, but I also make the personal commitment that if 
Washington, D.C.'s local government agencies will not do right by the 
children of this city and by the children that come and visit the city, 
then I, along with the majority of this body, will take action to 
alleviate the problem.
  I think Mayor Williams has made a sincere request. As an ex-mayor 
myself, I cannot deny him this chance to make his contribution to 
eliminating smoking within Washington, D.C. and hopefully setting an 
example for those other States and other jurisdictions who have not 
done the same in their area.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Bilbray) for working with me and working with Mayor Williams until 
we reached a satisfactory accommodation on this matter. I want to 
assure him that he should not have any doubt that we will, quote, do 
right by our own children.
  All that was necessary was the opportunity for the mayor, who has, 
after all, had many things on his plate inheriting the kind of 
government he did, to get to the notion that is close to him as well, 
to aggressively seek legislation that would deal comprehensively with 
smoking and tobacco use by children.
  I do want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), 
though, for the way in which he pursued this and to indicate to other 
Members that he went at this matter in a way that was satisfactory to 
him and to us in the way I most prefer, by simply working with me until 
we got it right. I appreciate the way in which he worked with me and 
with the city.
  I want to assure other Members that I always stand ready to work, to 
reach a similar accommodation when they have problems that they want 
solved in the city.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin as I did in the Appropriations 
Committee by thanking Chairman Istook for the way he has chaired the 
D.C. Subcommittee and prepared today's legislation.
  He has made a sincere effort to familiarize himself with the affairs 
of the District of Columbia by walking the city's streets, meeting with 
Mayor Williams and the City Council on several occasions, and touring 
the District's schools, its low income housing, the courts and the 
administrative offices.
  I know he shares my observation that many of the challenges and 
issues confronting the District are identical to those confronting most 
older urban communities.
  At the same time, there are a number of circumstances that make the 
District unique: it's a creation by Congress under Article I of the 
U.S. Constitution and the seat of the federal government, it has a 
large amount of federal property within its boundaries, and its local 
laws and budget may be subject to congressional review and approval.
  The fact that we are considering the District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act for fiscal Year 2000 reflects the District's unique 
status.
  In reviewing this legislation, let me begin by highlighting some of 
its positive aspects: it fully funds the consensus budget both the 
spending priorities and the tax cuts; it provides the federal funding 
level requested by the administration; in fact, it brings additional 
federal money to the District's aid, providing $8.5 million for 
adoption incentives for foster children; $20 million for severance pay 
for the Mayor's management initiative; more than $13 million for 
expanded drug treatment programs; $17 million to fund the in-state 
tuition benefits initiative and close to $20 million to help the Office 
of Offender Supervision tackle the very

[[Page 18618]]

serious crime problems caused by repeat offenders; and it helps address 
a number of city concerns from the operation of the District's courts 
to the hospitals.
  On the whole, this legislation is an improvement over the bill that 
came before us last year.
  With all that said, I must still object to a number of provisions 
that are in this legislation.
  These provisions, known collectively as ``riders,'' prohibit or tie 
the hands of District officials and its citizens to carry out and 
implement their own prerogatives.
  Perhaps when there was a large direct federal payment to the 
District's general funds, some could justify prohibiting the District's 
needle exchange program, its domestic partners' law, or even the 
counting of ballots on its medical marijuana initiative.
  The last direct payment in the fiscal 1999 appropriations act, 
combined with federal grant assistance, comprised more than 43 percent 
of the District's budget.
  Federal funds could co-mingle with local funds making it difficult to 
distinguish what was funded locally or with federal taxpayer dollars.
  The 1997 Revitalization Act changed all that and eliminated the 
concern that federal funds could co-mingle with local initiatives 
deemed inappropriate by a majority in Congress.
  For all intents and purposes, the 1997 Act discontinued the direct 
federal payment to the District's general fund.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Jim, the table on page 22 of the committee report states 
     that $26,950,000 in federal funds go to the District's 
     general funds. While true from an accounting perspective, all 
     $26,950,000 is restricted on how it can be spent: $17 million 
     for in-state tuition, $8.5 million for incentives for 
     adoption, $1.2 million for the Citizens Complaint Review 
     Board, and $250,000 for Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Any funds Congress may now appropriate to the general fund are for a 
specific spending purpose and can only be spent for that purpose.
  In return for the elimination of the direct federal payment, the 
federal government assumed direct financial responsibility for 
obligations and responsibilities traditionally assumed by state 
governments.
  Instead, the District will receive direct federal grants identical to 
those received by most local jurisdictions or federal payments to 
defray the cost of responsibilities assumed by most states and now 
assumed by the federal government in the case of the District.
  In this light, adding language prohibiting the District from 
implementing local initiatives, where no federal funds are involved, is 
a blatant abuse of congressional power.
  Using this bill to prohibit the District from using its resources to 
fund a needle exchange program, a program proven effective at reducing 
the spread of AIDS, is no different than Congress passing a law 
prohibiting needle exchange programs specifically in Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma, but permitting other locally funded needle exchange programs 
elsewhere to continue.
  Prohibiting the District of Columbia from expending its use of local 
funds to provide abortion services for its low-income residents, when 
other jurisdictions are free to use local funds for similar programs is 
just plain wrong.
  Banning the use of local funds to prohibit the District from seeking 
redress in federal court on its voting rights claim, is like telling 
the City of Boerne it could not challenge the ``Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act'' that it successfully argued before the Supreme Court.
  Barring the District from implementing its local domestic partnership 
law is like Congress passing a law to overturn Wichita, Kansas and 
Jasper, Alabama's health benefit plan for their public employees, 
teachers and police officers.
  And, preventing the District's election officials from counting the 
ballot on a local referendum is just plain anti-democratic.
  You may object to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, but to 
deny the election result from being tallied is like telling the 
citizens of Farmington, Missouri or Manchester, New Hampshire they 
cannot approve their referendums to finance building new schools.
  Have we become so arrogant in power and fearful of local initiatives 
that we have to block election results?
  I know some will argue that these riders are merely an extension of 
current law--they are.
  But, the context and circumstances with which Congress might have 
justified past intervention is now gone with the elimination of the 
direct federal payment.
  Federal taxpayer funds are no longer involved.
  We should, therefore, no longer concern ourselves with the actions of 
one local jurisdiction unless what we choose to do with it is applied 
equally to all jurisdictions.
  If a majority in Congress can accept the Labor-HHS restriction on 
abortion as a compromise, then this Congress should accept similar 
language restricting just the use of federal funds on these social 
riders.
  I was pleased to see that a majority of the full committee shared 
this perspective and approved two amendments that will permit the 
District to use non-federal funds to count the ballots on its 
referendum on the medicinal use of marijuana and revive its needle 
exchange program.
  I should also note that the White House opposes these social riders 
as well.
  The White House: strongly opposes the prohibition on the use of both 
federal and local funds to provide abortion services; objects to a 
provision prohibiting the use of federal or local funds to implement or 
enforce the District's Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic 
Partners Act); strongly objects to the limit on attorneys' fees in 
special education cases; and strongly opposes and may veto any bill 
that includes a prohibition on the use of local funds for needle 
exchange programs.
  I encourage the House to respect the District's right to pursue its 
own prerogatives with its own funds regardless of how members might 
feel about the merits of the specific local initiative.
  We should refrain from imposing any additional restrictions on the 
District's use of its own funds and support possible floor amendments 
that seek to remove those restrictions that still remain.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is 
absolutely right, and I just want to reiterate her comments.
  The amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) was 
intended to do the right thing for the children of the District of 
Columbia. Tobacco usage is wrong, it is harmful, and we want to work 
with him to reduce the amount of tobacco smoking on the part of youth, 
particularly given the fact that almost 3,000 children start smoking, 
teenagers, every day, and about a thousand of them are going to die as 
a result.
  So we had no objection to the good intentions on the part of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). The only problem is the 
appropriateness of that kind of legislation that normally is considered 
by the Committee on the Judiciary and in other manners other than the 
Committee on Appropriations. But, again, we thank him for his 
amendment. We particularly thank him for withdrawing it at this time, 
and we certainly want to work with him in other constructive approaches 
to reduce the amount of tobacco usage in the District.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will have inserted into the Record at the appropriate 
place the letters from Mayor Williams, the American Heart Association, 
and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and while introducing these 
letters, I am hoping that the Mayor is trying to introduce these issues 
and that he does not run into the opposition from organizations that 
claim they want to do everything possible to initiate this common sense 
approach, but mention that one little thing of saying that we will hold 
everyone responsible, and that individuals, even young people, have to 
be told quite clearly that they are going to be held responsible for 
staying away from tobacco products as much as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I am speaking from a position as coming from a local 
government agency; but I think anyone in this House would realize no 
State, no jurisdiction is more anti-smoking than the State of 
California. Some of us call it zealous. Even restaurants and bars do 
not allow smoking in California. What we found in California was that 
when a city in my district started enforcing a law against minor 
possession of tobacco, they found out there was no such law even in 
California.
  So those of us in local government and State government looked around 
and said, while we have been so busy pointing fingers at others, we 
have not been asking ourselves what can we do in our jurisdictions. So 
that is why I am asking that we ask the Federal district to do this, 
the city council to do this.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this will give us the chance to be able to 
set an

[[Page 18619]]

example; and, hopefully today, while we are discussing this, there are 
mayors, council members and legislators out there who will ask, is it 
illegal in our jurisdiction; have we done as much to send a clear 
message to children as Washington, D.C. is committed to doing today?
  Mr. Chairman, I hope all of us will look at ourselves and ask what 
have we done to keep our children away from tobacco; and I think this 
amendment, when it is passed by the city of D.C., will send that 
message.
  Mr. Chairman, the letters referred to above follow herewith:

                                                    July 27, 1999.
     Hon. Brian Bilbray,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Bilbray: Thank you for your July 8th 
     letter regarding your continued efforts to fight the damaging 
     effects of teen smoking and your continuing contact with my 
     staff. While I appreciate and respect your concerns on this 
     issue, and indeed share your goal of greatly reducing the 
     consumption of tobacco by minors, I believe an amendment to 
     the FY 2000 District of Columbia Appropriations would not be 
     the appropriate vehicle. I am asking that you withdraw the 
     proposed amendment and allow elected District officials to 
     pursue the issues.
       As our offices have discussed we share a common goal of 
     reducing teen tobacco consumption. In fact, I have often 
     stated that the care and safety of the District's children is 
     my top priority. To this end, I have spoken with 
     Councilmember Sandy Allen, the Chair of the Human Services 
     Committee, and she has agreed to hold a public hearing on the 
     issue of teen smoking as soon as the Council convenes after 
     its recess. In addition, I will introduce legislation that 
     seeks prohibitions on teen tobacco consumption when the City 
     Council returns.
       I look forward to your continued support and good wishes. I 
     appreciate your willingness to work with local officials on 
     this issue.
           Sincerely,


                                          Anthony A. Williams,

     Mayor.
                                  ____

         American Heart Association, Office of Communications and 
           Advocacy,
                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Brian Bilbray,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Bilbray: I am writing to express the 
     concerns of the American Heart Association regarding your 
     possible amendment to the District of Columbia Appropriations 
     bill (H.R. 2587), that would penalize D.C. children who are 
     caught with cigarettes or other tobacco products.
       We firmly believe that children who become addicted to 
     tobacco are victims of an industry whose own stated goal is 
     to find ``replacement smokers'' for the hundreds of thousands 
     of people who die each year from using their products. By 
     targeting children with billions in marketing and advertising 
     dollars, the tobacco industry has been very successful in 
     maintaining a customer base, in spite of the 430,000 American 
     deaths from tobacco use each year. Adults in the tobacco 
     industry and retail establishments that facilitate underage 
     marketing of tobacco products--not children--are the ones who 
     need to be penalized. Unfortunately, the United States 
     Congress has a very clear record of letting tobacco companies 
     off the hook.
       Because the repercussions of tobacco use are not always 
     immediately apparent to young people, we recognize your 
     motive to provide immediate consequences to children who are 
     caught with tobacco. We are not opposed to finding ways to 
     educate children on the dangers and consequences of tobacco 
     use and we would willingly work with you in the future to 
     accomplish this. However, unless this amendment is part of a 
     comprehensive approach to limit access to tobacco--and punish 
     adults who ignore access restrictions--then we believe it 
     will merely punish the victims of tobacco promotion.
       Although I am respectfully asking members to vote against 
     your amendment, I hope there will still be opportunities for 
     us to work together in the future to eliminate underage 
     tobacco use.
           Sincerely,
                                                  M. Cass Wheeler,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                               Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1999.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids 
     opposes the amendment that may be offered later today by 
     Representative Bilbray to the District of Columbia 
     appropriations bill. This amendment would penalize youth for 
     possession of tobacco products without creating a thoughtful, 
     comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco use among children and 
     without first ensuring that adults who illegally sell tobacco 
     to kids are held responsible.
       There is no silver bullet to reducing tobacco use among 
     kids, but this amendment, in the absence of other effective 
     policies, will do little to end tobacco's grip on the 
     children of D.C. There is little evidence to indicate that in 
     the absence of a concerted, comprehensive program, penalizing 
     kids will work to reduce tobacco use rates. A comprehensive 
     effective program should include not only vigorous 
     enforcement of laws against selling tobacco to kids but also 
     public education efforts, community and school based 
     programs, and help for smokers who want to quit.
       The narrow focus of this amendment will further divert 
     resources away from effective enforcement of the current laws 
     that prohibit retailers from selling to kids. Although the 
     District of Columbia penalizes retailers for selling to kids, 
     this law is not being enforced adequately. According to 
     Department of Health and Human Services, compliance checks 
     showed that 42.3 percent of retailers in D.C. sell tobacco 
     products to minors.
       Additionally, this amendment does not address the fact that 
     the tobacco industry spends $5 billion a year marketing its 
     products. Kids in D.C. continually see tobacco ads on 
     storefronts and in magazines. The tobacco industry's 
     marketing tactics work: 85 percent of kids who smoke use the 
     three most heavily advertised brands (Marlboro, Camel and 
     Newport). In addition, the success of the tobacco industry 
     targeted marketing efforts is evidenced by the fact that 75 
     percent of young African Americans smoke Newport, a brand 
     heavily marketed to this group.
       Any discussion of holding children responsible for their 
     addiction to tobacco should only come after or as part of a 
     comprehensive approach, which insures that adults are being 
     held responsible for marketing and selling to children. 
     Therefore, we ask that you oppose this amendment. Thank you.
       Sincerely,
                                                 Matthew L. Myers,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                               Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,

                                   Washington, DC, August 6, 1998.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids 
     opposes the amendment that may be offered later today by 
     Representative Bilbray to the District of Columbia 
     appropriations bill (H.R. 4380). This amendment would 
     penalize youth for possession of tobacco products without 
     creating a thoughtful, comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco 
     use among children and without first ensuring that adults who 
     illegally sell tobacco to kids are held responsible.
       There is no silver bullet to reducing tobacco use among 
     kids, but this amendment, in the absence of other effective 
     policies, will do little to end tobacco's grip on the 
     children of D.C. There is little evidence to indicate that in 
     the absence of a concerted, comprehensive program, penalizing 
     kids will work to reduce tobacco use rates. Rather, 
     experience from other cities indicates that only a 
     comprehensive program which vigorously enforces laws against 
     selling tobacco to kids through compliance checks of 
     retailers, and which included restrictions on tobacco ads 
     aimed at kids, will be effective.
       The narrow focus of this bill will further divert resources 
     away from effective enforcement of the current laws that 
     prohibit retailers from selling to kids. Although the 
     District of Columbia penalizes retailers for selling to kids, 
     this law is not being enforced adequately. According to 
     Department of Health and Human Services, compliance checks 
     showed that 42.3 percent of retailers in D.C. sell tobacco 
     products to minors.
       Additionally, this amendment does not address the fact that 
     the tobacco industry spends $5 billion a year marketing its 
     products. Kids in D.C. continually see tobacco ads on 
     billboards, bus shelters, and storefronts. The tobacco 
     industry's marketing tactics work: 85 percent of kids who 
     smoke use the three most heavily advertised brands (Marlboro, 
     Camel and Newport).
       Any discussion of holding children responsible for their 
     addiction to tobacco should only come after or as part of a 
     comprehensive approach, which insures that adults are being 
     held responsible for marketing and selling to children. 
     Therefore, we ask that you oppose this amendment. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Matthew L. Myers,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 1999.
     Hon. Anthony Williams,
     Mayor, District of Columbia,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mayor Williams: I would like to take this opportunity 
     to congratulate you on your recent election victory. As a 
     part-time resident of the District and as someone who spent 
     twenty years in local government, including two years as a 
     councilman and six years as a mayor, I wish you the best of 
     luck in your first term as Mayor of the District of Columbia.
       As you may already be aware, during the House of 
     Representatives Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 appropriation process I 
     introduced an amendment to the D.C. Appropriation Act

[[Page 18620]]

     (H.R. 4380) that prohibited individuals under the age of 18 
     years old from possessing and consuming tobacco products in 
     the District of Columbia. This amendment received strong 
     bipartisan support and passed through the House by a 238-138 
     vote on August 6, 1999, but unfortunately it was not included 
     in the final conference report.
       At the time I introduced this amendment only 21 states in 
     the nation had minor possession laws outlawing tobacco, and 
     my amendment would have added the District of Columbia to 
     this growing list of states. My amendment was very straight 
     forward and easy to understand. It contained a provision to 
     exempt from this prohibition a minor individual ``making a 
     delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in his or her 
     employment'' while on the job.
       My amendment also contained a penalty section, which was 
     modeled after the state of Virginia's penalty section for 
     minors found in violation of tobacco possession. For the 
     first violation, the minor would, at the discretion of the 
     judge, be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50. For 
     the second violation, the minor would be subject to a civil 
     penalty not to exceed $100. For a third or subsequent 
     violation, the minor would have his or her driver's license 
     suspended for a period of 90 consecutive days. The 90 day 
     suspension is consistent with penalties for minor possession 
     of alcohol in the District of Columbia. Any minor found to be 
     in possession of tobacco may also be required to perform 
     community service or attend a tobacco cessation program. Each 
     of these penalties are at the judge's discretion.
       I understand that the District of Columbia already has 
     tough laws on the books to address the issue of sales of 
     tobacco to minors. My amendment focused specifically on the 
     possession of tobacco products by minors in order to put 
     minor possession of tobacco with minor possession of alcohol. 
     All three cities in my district have passed anti-possession 
     laws, so I am not asking the District to do anything my own 
     communities have not already done.
       I was an original cosponsor of the strongest anti-tobacco 
     bill in the 105th Congress, the Bipartisan NO Tobacco for 
     Kids Act (H.R. 3868). The intentions of my amendment was to 
     encourage youth to take responsibility for their actions. If 
     individuals under the age of 18 know they will face a penalty 
     for possession of tobacco, they might be deterred from ever 
     starting to smoke in the first place.
       As we move forward in the 106th Congress I would like to 
     know whether you plan to address this issue at the local 
     level. I think it is important that all levels of government 
     work together to help stop children from smoking. I also 
     believe we should send the right message to our children, and 
     the first step in this process would be for the District of 
     Columbia to join Virginia, Maryland, and the twenty other 
     states who have passed youth possession and consumption laws. 
     I would appreciate knowing of your intentions, and to work 
     with you and Members on both sides of the aisle in 1999 to 
     make sure this important piece of legislation becomes law.
       Again, congratulations on your new position as Mayor and I 
     look forward to working with you in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Brian P. Bilbray,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                              Anthony A. Williams,


                                  Mayor, District of Columbia,

                                                     May 21, 1999.
     Hon. Brian Bilbray,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Bilbray: Thank you for your letter sharing 
     your concern about teenage smoking in the District and your 
     congratulations on my November election to the Office of 
     Mayor.
       In response to your inquiry, the District of Columbia is 
     addressing the issue of teen smoking through a variety of 
     methods. DC Public Schools has two programs--The Great 
     American Smoke-out and ``2 Smart 2 Smoke''--to raise 
     children's awareness of the dangers of smoking. Additionally, 
     the Department of Health supports the efforts of local and 
     community-based initiatives like ``Ad-Up, Word-Up and Speak-
     Out,'' which encourages school age children to perform their 
     own research on the effects of advertising directed at 
     children.
       Finally, the school system recently elevated possession of 
     tobacco to a ``level one'' infraction--which means violators 
     could incur the most severe disciplinary measures, including 
     possible suspension. To assess our progress, the District is 
     tracking youth smoking related data through grants provided 
     by the Center for Disease Control.
       I want to assure you that I share your concerns about 
     teenage smokers. Sandra Allen, Chairperson of the City 
     Council's Committee on Human Services, and I are working 
     diligently to strengthen enforcement which should, in 
     combination with the other initiatives, result in a real 
     reduction of teenage smoking. We believe that the cumulative 
     effect of these initiatives will have a marked improvement on 
     the incidence of teen smoking.
       Again thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront of 
     my attention. I agree that discouraging our youth from 
     engaging in this terrible habit of smoking is very important 
     in the fight to curtail tobacco's tragic and inevitable long-
     term effects.
           Sincerely,
                                              Anthony A. Williams,
     Mayor.
                                  ____

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 1999.
     Hon. Anthony Williams,
     Mayor, District of Columbia,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mayor Williams: I would like to thank you for your 
     response to my letter regarding my youth consumption 
     amendment and the tobacco strategies in the District of 
     Columbia. I appreciate the information you provided regarding 
     the programs the D.C. public schools are implementing to 
     combat youth smoking.
       As I mentioned in my first letter, in the 105th Congress I 
     introduced an amendment to H.R. 4380, FY 1999 District of 
     Columbia appropriations bill that sought to prohibit 
     individuals under the age of 18 years from possessing and 
     consuming tobacco products in the District of Columbia. This 
     amendment received strong bipartisan support and passed 
     through the House by a 238-138 vote on August 6, 1998.
       I intend to reintroduce this amendment to the FY 2000 D.C. 
     Appropriations Bill later in the year when Congress takes up 
     this legislation. I believe at the same time we are educating 
     youths on the dangers of tobacco and curtailing 
     advertisements by the tobacco industry, we need to strive for 
     new and innovative ways to reduce tobacco use along with 
     sending a clear message to our youth that we will not 
     tolerate the consumption of tobacco. This is what a youth 
     consumption law in the District will accomplish.
       My amendment contains a penalty section, which is modeled 
     after the state of Virginia's penalty section for minors 
     found in violation of tobacco possession. For the first 
     violation, the minor would, at the discretion of the judge, 
     be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50. For the 
     second violation, the minor would be subject to a civil 
     penalty not to exceed $100. For a third or subsequent 
     violation, the minor would have his or her driver's license 
     suspended for a period of 90 consecutive days. The 90 day 
     suspension is consistent with penalties for minor possession 
     of alcohol in the District of Columbia. Any minor found to be 
     in possession of tobacco may also be required to perform 
     community service or attend a tobacco cessation program. Each 
     of these penalties are at the judge's discretion (I have 
     attached a draft of my amendment for your convenience).
       My amendment focuses specifically on the possession of 
     tobacco products by minors in order to put minor possession 
     of tobacco with minor possession of alcohol. If we are really 
     serious about reducing youth consumption of tobacco we need 
     to put it on the same level as alcohol and treat it equally.
       Again, thank you for responding to my original letter and I 
     look forward to working with you on this important issue. 
     Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Brian P. Bilbray,
                                               Member of Congress.

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia 
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook).
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his 
support in providing $250,000 in the bill to continue the mentoring 
program for at-risk children and the resource hotline for low-income 
individuals in the District.
  Last year, Congress appropriated $250,000 to the International Youth 
Service and Development and Corporation to provide these worthwhile and 
much-needed services to the District. During the past year, I had the 
privilege to visit the southeast White House in Anacostia, where some 
of these services are provided to low-income citizens and at-risk 
children. I am pleased to report to the Congress that this minor 
allocation of $250,000 is making a real difference in the lives of many 
families who were struggling to survive and protect their children who 
are at risk in their community.

[[Page 18621]]

  Is it the chairman's intention that this appropriation of $250,000 be 
used by the city to continue the good work which is currently being 
accomplished by the International Youth Service Development 
Corporation?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for his hard work in this area. I know personally 
how active and vocal he has been as an advocate for the families and 
their children in the District that are most at risk.
  The gentleman is correct that we have worked with the District and 
provided funding for them, which they are using to carry on this 
program that the gentleman has been discussing, and we are happy to be 
able to do that so that this work might continue and that the District 
might be able to work with him to do so.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
through page 25, line 12 be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 3, line 7, through page 25, line 12 is 
as follows:

         Federal Payment to the Citizen Complaint Review Board

       For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for 
     administrative expenses of the Citizen Complaint Review 
     Board, $1,200,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2001.

          Federal Payment to the Department of Human Services

       For a Federal payment to the Department of Human Services 
     for a mentoring program and for hotline services, $250,000.

    Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee 
                               Operations

       For salaries and expenses of the District of Columbia 
     Corrections Trustee, $183,000,000 for the administration and 
     operation of correctional facilities and for the 
     administrative operating costs of the Office of the 
     Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the 
     National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
     Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33, approved August 
     5, 1997; 111 Stat. 712): Provided, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, funds appropriated in this Act for 
     the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee shall be 
     apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget 
     and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds 
     appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal 
     agencies.

           Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts

       For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia 
     Courts, $100,714,000 to be allocated as follows: for the 
     District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $7,209,000; for the 
     District of Columbia Superior Court, $75,245,000; for the 
     District of Columbia Court System, $9,260,000 and $9,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2001, for capital 
     improvements for District of Columbia courthouse facilities: 
     Provided, That of the amounts available for operations of the 
     District of Columbia Courts, not to exceed $2,500,000 shall 
     be for the design of an Integrated Justice Information System 
     and that such funds shall be used in accordance with a plan 
     and design developed by the courts and approved by the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, all amounts under this heading shall 
     be apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and 
     Budget and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds 
     appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal 
     agencies, with payroll and financial services to be provided 
     on a contractual basis with the General Services 
     Administration, said services to include the preparation of 
     monthly financial reports, copies of which shall be submitted 
     directly by GSA to the President and to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives.

            Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts

       For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section 
     11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under 
     the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act), payments for 
     counsel appointed in proceedings in the Family Division of 
     the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under chapter 
     23 of title 16, D.C. Code, and payments for counsel 
     authorized under section 21-2060, D.C. Code (relating to 
     representation provided under the District of Columbia 
     Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of 
     Attorney Act of 1986), $33,336,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That such funds shall be administered by 
     the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the 
     District of Columbia: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, this appropriation shall be 
     apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget 
     and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds 
     appropriated for expenses of other Federal agencies.

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

       For salaries and expenses of the Court Services and 
     Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, as 
     authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
     Government Improvement Act of 1997, as amended (Public Law 
     105-33, approved August 5, 1997; 111 Stat. 712), 
     $105,500,000, of which $69,400,000 shall be for necessary 
     expenses of Parole Revocation, Adult Probation and Offender 
     Supervision, to include expenses relating to supervision of 
     adults subject to protection orders or provision of services 
     for or related to such persons; $17,400,000 shall be 
     available to the Public Defender Service; and $18,700,000 
     shall be available to the Pretrial Services Agency: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts 
     under this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the 
     Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in 
     the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and 
     expenses of other Federal agencies: Provided further, That of 
     the amounts made available under this heading, $32,192,000 
     shall be used in support of universal drug screening and 
     testing for those individuals on pretrial, probation, or 
     parole supervision with continued testing, intermediate 
     sanctions, and other treatment for those identified in need, 
     of which not to exceed $13,245,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 2001, for treatment services.

                   Children's National Medical Center

       For a Federal contribution to the Children's National 
     Medical Center in the District of Columbia, $3,500,000 for 
     construction, renovation, and information technology 
     infrastructure costs associated with establishing community 
     pediatric health clinics for high risk children in medically 
     underserved areas of the District of Columbia.

                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

                          Division of Expenses

       The following amounts are appropriated for the District of 
     Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund 
     of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided.

                   Governmental Direction and Support

       Governmental direction and support, $162,356,000 (including 
     $137,134,000 from local funds, $11,670,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $13,552,000 from other funds): Provided, That not 
     to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the 
     City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation 
     for official purposes: Provided further, That any program 
     fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available 
     for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of 
     the District of Columbia: Provided further, That no revenues 
     from Federal sources shall be used to support the operations 
     or activities of the Statehood Commission and Statehood 
     Compact Commission: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission 
     to Statehood from its own locally-generated revenues: 
     Provided further, That all employees permanently assigned to 
     work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid from funds 
     allocated to the Office of the Mayor.

                  Economic Development and Regulation

       Economic development and regulation, $190,335,000 
     (including $52,911,000 from local funds, $84,751,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $52,673,000 from other funds), of which 
     $15,000,000 collected by the District of Columbia in the form 
     of BID tax revenue shall be paid to the respective BIDs 
     pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996 
     (D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the 
     Business Improvement Districts Temporary Amendment Act of 
     1997 (D.C. Law 12-23): Provided, That such funds are 
     available for acquiring services provided by the General 
     Services Administration: Provided further, That Business 
     Improvement Districts shall be exempt from taxes levied by 
     the District of Columbia.

                       Public Safety and Justice

       Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease of 
     135 passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement only, 
     including 130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use, 
     without regard to the general purchase price limitation for 
     the current fiscal year, $785,670,000 (including $565,411,000 
     from local funds, $29,012,000 from Federal funds, and 
     $191,247,000 from other funds): Provided, That the 
     Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not 
     to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Department

[[Page 18622]]

     of Fire and Emergency Medical Services of the District of 
     Columbia is authorized to replace not to exceed five 
     passenger-carrying vehicles annually whenever the cost of 
     repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds three-fourths of the 
     cost of the replacement: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $500,000 shall be available from this appropriation for the 
     Chief of Police for the prevention and detection of crime: 
     Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department 
     shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate on efforts to increase 
     efficiency and improve the professionalism in the department: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, or Mayor's Order 86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the 
     Metropolitan Police Department's delegated small purchase 
     authority shall be $500,000: Provided further, That the 
     District of Columbia government may not require the 
     Metropolitan Police Department to submit to any other 
     procurement review process, or to obtain the approval of or 
     be restricted in any manner by any official or employee of 
     the District of Columbia government, for purchases that do 
     not exceed $500,000: Provided further, That the Mayor shall 
     reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for 
     expenses incurred in connection with services that are 
     performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia 
     status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall 
     be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for 
     these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the 
     District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That 
     such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the 
     District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding 
     proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the 
     availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting 
     payment in advance for emergency services involved: Provided 
     further, That the Metropolitan Police Department is 
     authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn officers, with leave for a 
     50 officer attrition: Provided further, That no more than 15 
     members of the Metropolitan Police Department shall be 
     detailed or assigned to the Executive Protection Unit, until 
     the Chief of Police submits a recommendation to the Council 
     for its review: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be 
     available for inmates released on medical and geriatric 
     parole: Provided further, That commencing on December 31, 
     1999, the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House 
     of Representatives, quarterly reports on the status of crime 
     reduction in each of the 83 police service areas established 
     throughout the District of Columbia.

                        Public Education System

       Public education system, including the development of 
     national defense education programs, $867,411,000 (including 
     $721,847,000 from local funds, $120,951,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $24,613,000 from other funds), to be allocated as 
     follows: $713,197,000 (including $600,936,000 from local 
     funds, $106,213,000 from Federal funds, and $6,048,000 from 
     other funds), for the public schools of the District of 
     Columbia; $17,000,000 from local funds being the Federal 
     payment appropriated earlier in this Act for resident tuition 
     support at public and private institutions of higher learning 
     for eligible District residents; $10,700,000 from local funds 
     for the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; and 
     not less than $27,885,000 from local funds for public charter 
     schools: Provided, That if the entirety of this allocation 
     has not been provided as payments to any public charter 
     schools currently in operation through the per pupil funding 
     formula, the funds shall be available for new public charter 
     schools on a per pupil basis: Provided further, That $480,000 
     of this amount shall be available to the District of Columbia 
     Public Charter School Board for administrative costs; 
     $72,347,000 (including $40,491,000 from local funds, 
     $13,536,000 from Federal funds, and $18,320,000 from other 
     funds) for the University of the District of Columbia; 
     $24,171,000 (including $23,128,000 from local funds, $798,000 
     from Federal funds and $245,000 other funds) for the Public 
     Library; $2,111,000 (including $1,707,000 from local funds 
     and $404,000 from Federal funds) for the Commission on the 
     Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That the public 
     schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept 
     not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use in the 
     driver education program: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for 
     the President of the University of the District of Columbia, 
     and $2,000 for the Public Librarian shall be available from 
     this appropriation for official purposes: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds contained in this Act may be made 
     available to pay the salaries of any District of Columbia 
     Public School teacher, principal, administrator, official, or 
     employee who knowingly provides false enrollment or 
     attendance information under article II, section 5 of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to provide for compulsory school 
     attendance, for the taking of a school census in the District 
     of Columbia, and for other purposes'', approved February 4, 
     1925 (D.C. Code, sec. 31-401 et seq.): Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the 
     education of any nonresident of the District of Columbia at 
     any District of Columbia public elementary and secondary 
     school during fiscal year 2000 unless the nonresident pays 
     tuition to the District of Columbia at a rate that covers 100 
     percent of the costs incurred by the District of Columbia 
     which are attributable to the education of the nonresident 
     (as established by the Superintendent of the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools): Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall not be available to subsidize the 
     education of nonresidents of the District of Columbia at the 
     University of the District of Columbia, unless the Board of 
     Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia 
     adopts, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, a 
     tuition rate schedule that will establish the tuition rate 
     for nonresident students at a level no lower than the 
     nonresident tuition rate charged at comparable public 
     institutions of higher education in the metropolitan area.

                         Human Support Services

       Human support services, $1,526,361,000 (including 
     $635,373,000 from local funds, $875,814,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $15,174,000 from other funds): Provided, That 
     $25,150,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia 
     employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That a 
     peer review committee shall be established to review medical 
     payments and the type of service received by a disability 
     compensation claimant: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia shall not provide free government services such as 
     water, sewer, solid waste disposal or collection, utilities, 
     maintenance, repairs, or similar services to any legally 
     constituted private nonprofit organization, as defined in 
     section 411(5) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance 
     Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11371), 
     providing emergency shelter services in the District, if the 
     District would not be qualified to receive reimbursement 
     pursuant to such Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 
     U.S.C. 11301 et seq.).

                              Public Works

       Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying 
     vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying 
     vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia 
     and leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles, $271,395,000 
     (including $258,341,000 from local funds, $3,099,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $9,955,000 from other funds): Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall not be available for collecting 
     ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and places of 
     business: Provided further, That $2,620,000 shall be 
     available for program enhancements ($1,370,000 for selected 
     increases in District bus service; $800,000 for new feeder 
     bus service; $200,000 for new small bus operations; and 
     $250,000 for the planning and development of the proposed New 
     York Avenue Metrorail station).

                         Receivership Programs

       For all agencies of the District of Columbia government 
     under court ordered receivership, $345,577,000 (including 
     $221,106,000 from local funds, $106,111,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $18,360,000 from other funds).

                         Workforce Investments

       For workforce investments, $8,500,000 from local funds, to 
     be transferred by the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
     within the various appropriation headings in this Act for 
     which employees are properly payable.

                                Reserve

       For a reserve to be established by the Chief Financial 
     Officer of the District of Columbia and the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority, $150,000,000 from local funds: Provided, That the 
     reserve shall only be expended according to criteria 
     established by the Chief Financial Officer and approved by 
     the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority, and the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations.

District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
                               Authority

       For the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority, established by section 
     101(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Act of 1995, approved April 17, 
     1995 (109 Stat. 97; Public Law 104-8), $3,140,000: Provided, 
     That none of the funds contained in this Act may be used to 
     pay any compensation of the Executive Director or General 
     Counsel of the Authority at a rate in excess of the maximum 
     rate of compensation which may be paid to such individual 
     during fiscal year 2000 under section 102 of such Act, as 
     determined by the Comptroller General (as described in GAO 
     letter report B-279095.2).

                    Repayment of Loans and Interest

       For payment of principal, interest and certain fees 
     directly resulting from borrowing by the District of Columbia 
     to fund District of Columbia capital projects as authorized 
     by sections 462, 475, and 490 of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973, as amended, and 
     that funds shall

[[Page 18623]]

     be allocated for expenses associated with the Wilson 
     Building, $328,417,000 from local funds: Provided, That for 
     equipment leases, the Mayor may finance $27,527,000 of 
     equipment cost, plus cost of issuance not to exceed two 
     percent of the par amount being financed on a lease purchase 
     basis with a maturity not to exceed five years: Provided 
     further, That $5,300,000 is allocated to the Metropolitan 
     Police Department, $3,200,000 for the Fire and Emergency 
     Medical Services Department, $350,000 for the Department of 
     Corrections, $15,949,000 for the Department of Public Works 
     and $2,728,000 for the Public Benefit Corporation.

                Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt

       For the purpose of eliminating the $331,589,000 general 
     fund accumulated deficit as of September 30, 1990, 
     $38,286,000 from local funds, as authorized by section 461(a) 
     of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 
     24, 1973, as amended (105 Stat. 540; Public Law 102-106; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 47-321(a)(1)).

              Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing

       For payment of interest on short-term borrowing, $9,000,000 
     from local funds.

                     Certificates of Participation

       For lease payments in accordance with the Certificates of 
     Participation involving the land site underlying the building 
     located at One Judiciary Square, $7,950,000 from local funds.

                      Optical and Dental Payments

       For optical and dental payments, $1,295,000 from local 
     funds.

                           Productivity Bank

       The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, 
     under the direction of the Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     shall finance projects totaling $20,000,000 in local funds 
     that result in cost savings or additional revenues, by an 
     amount equal to such financing: Provided, That the Mayor 
     shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     by the 15th calendar day after the end of each quarter 
     beginning December 31, 1999, on the status of the projects 
     financed under this heading.

                       Productivity Bank Savings

       The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, 
     under the direction of the Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     shall make reductions totaling $20,000,000 in local funds. 
     The reductions are to be allocated to projects funded through 
     the Productivity Bank that produce cost savings or additional 
     revenues in an amount equal to the Productivity Bank 
     financing: Provided, That the Mayor shall provide quarterly 
     reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate by the 15th calendar day after 
     the end of each quarter beginning December 31, 1999, on the 
     status of the cost savings or additional revenues funded 
     under this heading.

                   Procurement and Management Savings

       The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, 
     under the direction of the Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     shall make reductions of $14,457,000 for general supply 
     schedule savings and $7,000,000 for management reform 
     savings, in local funds to one or more of the appropriation 
     headings in this Act: Provided, That the Mayor shall provide 
     quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate by the 15th calendar 
     day after the end of each quarter beginning December 31, 
     1999, on the status of the general supply schedule savings 
     and management reform savings projected under this heading.

                       ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS

         Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct

       For operation of the Water and Sewer Authority and the 
     Washington Aqueduct, $279,608,000 from other funds (including 
     $236,075,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority and 
     $43,533,000 for the Washington Aqueduct) of which $35,222,000 
     shall be apportioned and payable to the District's debt 
     service fund for repayment of loans and interest incurred for 
     capital improvement projects.
       For construction projects, $197,169,000, as authorized by 
     An Act authorizing the laying of watermains and service 
     sewers in the District of Columbia, the levying of 
     assessments therefor, and for other purposes, approved April 
     22, 1904 (33 Stat. 244; Public Law 58-140; D.C. Code, sec. 
     43-1512 et seq.): Provided, That the requirements and 
     restrictions that are applicable to general fund capital 
     improvements projects and set forth in this Act under the 
     Capital Outlay appropriation title shall apply to projects 
     approved under this appropriation title.

              Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund

       For the Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund, 
     established by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, approved December 
     4, 1981 (95 Stat. 1174, 1175; Public Law 97-91), as amended, 
     for the purpose of implementing the Law to Legalize 
     Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and Raffles for 
     Charitable Purposes in the District of Columbia, effective 
     March 10, 1981 (D.C. Law 3-172; D.C. Code, secs. 2-2501 et 
     seq. and 22-1516 et seq.), $234,400,000: Provided, That the 
     District of Columbia shall identify the source of funding for 
     this appropriation title from the District's own locally 
     generated revenues: Provided further, That no revenues from 
     Federal sources shall be used to support the operations or 
     activities of the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board.

                  Sports and Entertainment Commission

       For the Sports and Entertainment Commission, $10,846,000 
     from other funds for expenses incurred by the Armory Board in 
     the exercise of its powers granted by the Act entitled ``An 
     Act To Establish A District of Columbia Armory Board, and for 
     other purposes'', approved June 4, 1948 (62 Stat. 339; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 2-301 et seq.) and the District of Columbia 
     Stadium Act of 1957, approved September 7, 1957 (71 Stat. 
     619; Public Law 85-300; D.C. Code, sec. 2-321 et seq.): 
     Provided, That the Mayor shall submit a budget for the Armory 
     Board for the forthcoming fiscal year as required by section 
     442(b) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved 
     December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 824; Public Law 93-198; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 47-301(b)).

          D.C. Health and Hospitals Public Benefit Corporation

       For the District of Columbia Health and Hospitals Public 
     Benefit Corporation, established by D.C. Law 11-212, D.C. 
     Code, sec. 32-262.2, effective April 9, 1997, $133,443,000 of 
     which $44,435,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
     general fund and $89,008,000 from other funds.

                         D.C. Retirement Board

       For the D.C. Retirement Board, established by section 121 
     of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform Act of 1979, 
     approved November 17, 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     711), $9,892,000 from the earnings of the applicable 
     retirement funds to pay legal, management, investment, and 
     other fees and administrative expenses of the District of 
     Columbia Retirement Board: Provided, That the District of 
     Columbia Retirement Board shall provide to the Congress and 
     to the Council of the District of Columbia a quarterly report 
     of the allocations of charges by fund and of expenditures of 
     all funds: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board shall provide the Mayor, for transmittal to 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, an itemized 
     accounting of the planned use of appropriated funds in time 
     for each annual budget submission and the actual use of such 
     funds in time for each annual audited financial report: 
     Provided further, That section 121(c)(1) of the District of 
     Columbia Retirement Reform Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-711(c)(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``the total amount to which a member 
     may be entitled'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``the total amount to which a member may be 
     entitled under this subsection during a year (beginning with 
     1998) may not exceed $5,000, except that in the case of the 
     Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Investment 
     Committee of the Board, such amount may not exceed $10,000 
     (beginning with 2000).''.

                      Correctional Industries Fund

       For the Correctional Industries Fund, established by the 
     District of Columbia Correctional Industries Establishment 
     Act, approved October 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 1000; Public Law 88-
     622), $1,810,000 from other funds.

              Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund

       For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund, 
     $50,226,000 from other funds.

                             Capital Outlay


                        (Including Rescissions)

       For construction projects, $1,260,524,000 of which 
     $929,450,000 is from local funds, $54,050,000 is from the 
     highway trust fund, and $277,024,000 is from Federal funds, 
     and a rescission of $41,886,500 from local funds approriated 
     under this heading in prior fiscal years, for a net amount of 
     $1,218,637,500 to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That funds for use of each capital project implementing 
     agency shall be managed and controlled in accordance with all 
     procedures and limitations established under the Financial 
     Management System: Provided further, That all funds provided 
     by this appropriation title shall be available only for the 
     specific projects and purposes intended: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding the foregoing, all authorizations for 
     capital outlay projects, except those projects covered by the 
     first sentence of section 23(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway 
     Act of 1968, approved August 23, 1968 (82 Stat. 827; Public 
     Law 90-495; D.C. Code, sec. 7-134, note), for which funds are 
     provided by this appropriation title, shall expire on 
     September 30, 2001, except authorizations for projects as to 
     which funds have been obligated in whole or in part prior to 
     September 30, 2001: Provided further, That upon expiration of 
     any such project authorization the funds provided herein for 
     the project shall lapse.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?

[[Page 18624]]

  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           General Provisions

       Sec. 101. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 102. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all 
     vouchers covering expenditures of appropriations contained in 
     this Act shall be audited before payment by the designated 
     certifying official, and the vouchers as approved shall be 
     paid by checks issued by the designated disbursing official.
       Sec. 103. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified 
     within an appropriation for particular purposes or objects of 
     expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified, shall 
     be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for 
     said purpose or object rather than an amount set apart 
     exclusively therefor.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations in this Act shall be available, 
     when authorized by the Mayor, for allowances for privately 
     owned automobiles and motorcycles used for the performance of 
     official duties at rates established by the Mayor: Provided, 
     That such rates shall not exceed the maximum prevailing rates 
     for such vehicles as prescribed in the Federal Property 
     Management Regulations 101-7 (Federal Travel Regulations).
       Sec. 105. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of 
     organizations concerned with the work of the District of 
     Columbia government, when authorized by the Mayor: Provided, 
     That in the case of the Council of the District of Columbia, 
     funds may be expended with the authorization of the chair of 
     the Council.
       Sec. 106. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have 
     been entered against the District of Columbia government: 
     Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be 
     construed as modifying or affecting the provisions of section 
     11(c)(3) of title XII of the District of Columbia Income and 
     Franchise Tax Act of 1947, approved March 31, 1956 (70 Stat. 
     78; Public Law 84-460; D.C. Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
       Sec. 107. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     the payment of public assistance without reference to the 
     requirement of section 544 of the District of Columbia Public 
     Assistance Act of 1982, effective April 6, 1982 (D.C. Law 4-
     101; D.C. Code, sec. 3-205.44), and for the payment of the 
     non-Federal share of funds necessary to qualify for grants 
     under subtitle A of title II of the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
       Sec. 108. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 109. No funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     District of Columbia government for the operation of 
     educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or 
     for other educational purposes may be used to permit, 
     encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political 
     activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the 
     availability of school buildings for the use of any community 
     or partisan political group during non-school hours.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the 
     District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade, 
     salary, past work experience, and salary history are not 
     available for inspection by the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on the District of 
     Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform, the 
     Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
     Restructuring and the District of Columbia of the Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Council of the 
     District of Columbia, or their duly authorized 
     representative.
       Sec. 111. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making payments authorized by the District of Columbia 
     Revenue Recovery Act of 1977, effective September 23, 1977 
     (D.C. Law 2-20; D.C. Code, sec. 47-421 et seq.).
       Sec. 112. No part of this appropriation shall be used for 
     publicity or propaganda purposes or implementation of any 
     policy including boycott designed to support or defeat 
     legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature.
       Sec. 113. At the start of the fiscal year, the Mayor shall 
     develop an annual plan, by quarter and by project, for 
     capital outlay borrowings: Provided, That within a reasonable 
     time after the close of each quarter, the Mayor shall report 
     to the Council of the District of Columbia and the Congress 
     the actual borrowings and spending progress compared with 
     projections.
       Sec. 114. The Mayor shall not borrow any funds for capital 
     projects unless the Mayor has obtained prior approval from 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, by resolution, 
     identifying the projects and amounts to be financed with such 
     borrowings.
       Sec. 115. The Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed 
     for capital projects for the operating expenses of the 
     District of Columbia government.
       Sec. 116. None of the funds provided under this Act to the 
     agencies funded by this Act, both Federal and District 
     government agencies, that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2000, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for an 
     agency through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates 
     new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or 
     responsibility center; (3) establishes or changes allocations 
     specifically denied, limited or increased by Congress in the 
     Act; (4) increases funds or personnel by any means for any 
     program, project, or responsibility center for which funds 
     have been denied or restricted; (5) reestablishes through 
     reprogramming any program or project previously deferred 
     through reprogramming; (6) augments existing programs, 
     projects, or responsibility centers through a reprogramming 
     of funds in excess of $1,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is 
     less; or (7) increases by 20 percent or more personnel 
     assigned to a specific program, project, or responsibility 
     center; unless the Appropriations Committees of both the 
     Senate and House of Representatives are notified in writing 
     30 days in advance of any reprogramming as set forth in this 
     section.
       Sec. 117. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of the District of Columbia.
       Sec. 118. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to procure passenger 
     automobiles as defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act 
     of 1980, approved October 10, 1980 (94 Stat. 1824; Public Law 
     96-425; 15 U.S.C. 2001(2)), with an Environmental Protection 
     Agency estimated miles per gallon average of less than 22 
     miles per gallon: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to security, emergency rescue, or armored vehicles.


                   compensation for certain officials

       Sec. 119. (a) City Administrator.--The last sentence of 
     section 422(7) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(7)) is amended by striking ``, not to 
     exceed'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
       (b) Board of Directors of Redevelopment Land Agency.--
     Section 1108(c)(2)(F) of the District of Columbia Government 
     Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     612.8(c)(2)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(F) Redevelopment Land Agency board members shall be paid 
     per diem compensation at a rate established by the Mayor, 
     except that such rate may not exceed the daily equivalent of 
     the annual rate of basic pay for level 15 of the District 
     Schedule for each day (including travel time) during which 
     they are engaged in the actual performance of their 
     duties.''.
       Sec. 120. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     provisions of the District of Columbia Government 
     Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, effective March 3, 
     1979 (D.C. Law 2-139; D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), 
     enacted pursuant to section 422(3) of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 
     790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(3)), shall 
     apply with respect to the compensation of District of 
     Columbia employees: Provided, That for pay purposes, 
     employees of the District of Columbia government shall not be 
     subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 121. No later than 30 days after the end of the first 
     quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council 
     of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 2000 revenue 
     estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 
     2000. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. The officially 
     revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear 
     report.
       Sec. 122. No sole source contract with the District of 
     Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or 
     extended without opening that contract to the competitive 
     bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District 
     of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985, effective 
     February 21, 1986 (D.C. Law 6-85; D.C. Code, sec. 1-1183.3), 
     except that the District of Columbia government or any agency 
     thereof may renew or extend sole source contracts for which 
     competition is not feasible or practical: Provided, That the 
     determination as to whether to invoke the competitive bidding 
     process has been made in accordance with duly promulgated 
     rules and procedures and said determination has been reviewed 
     and approved by the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.
       Sec. 123. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985, (99 
     Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-177), as amended, the term 
     ``program, project, and activity'' shall

[[Page 18625]]

     be synonymous with and refer specifically to each account 
     appropriating Federal funds in this Act, and any 
     sequestration order shall be applied to each of the accounts 
     rather than to the aggregate total of those accounts: 
     Provided, That sequestration orders shall not be applied to 
     any account that is specifically exempted from sequestration 
     by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       Sec. 124. In the event a sequestration order is issued 
     pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99 Stat. 1037: 
     Public Law 99-177), as amended, after the amounts 
     appropriated to the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 
     involved have been paid to the District of Columbia, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall pay to the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, within 15 days after receipt of a request 
     therefor from the Secretary of the Treasury, such amounts as 
     are sequestered by the order: Provided, That the 
     sequestration percentage specified in the order shall be 
     applied proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation 
     accounts in this Act that are not specifically exempted from 
     sequestration by such Act.
       Sec. 125. (a) An entity of the District of Columbia 
     government may accept and use a gift or donation during 
     fiscal year 2000 if--
       (1) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift 
     or donation: Provided, That the Council of the District of 
     Columbia may accept and use gifts without prior approval by 
     the Mayor; and
       (2) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its 
     authorized functions or duties.
       (b) Each entity of the District of Columbia government 
     shall keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance 
     and use of any gift or donation under subsection (a) of this 
     section, and shall make such records available for audit and 
     public inspection.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``entity of 
     the District of Columbia government'' includes an independent 
     agency of the District of Columbia.
       (d) This section shall not apply to the District of 
     Columbia Board of Education, which may, pursuant to the laws 
     and regulations of the District of Columbia, accept and use 
     gifts to the public schools without prior approval by the 
     Mayor.
       Sec. 126. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for 
     salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the 
     offices of United States Senator or United States 
     Representative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia 
     Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979, 
     effective March 10, 1981 (D.C. Law 3-171; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     113(d)).
       Sec. 127. (a) The University of the District of Columbia 
     shall submit to the Mayor, the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (hereafter 
     in this section referred to as ``Authority''), and the 
     Council of the District of Columbia (hereafter in this 
     section referred to as ``Council'') no later than 15 calendar 
     days after the end of each quarter a report that sets forth--
       (1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
     date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year 
     expenditure projections versus budget broken out on the basis 
     of control center, responsibility center, and object class, 
     and for all funds, non-appropriated funds, and capital 
     financing;
       (2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center, 
     responsibility center, detailed object, and for all funding 
     sources;
       (3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000 
     annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the 
     budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the 
     basis of control center and responsibility center, and 
     contract identifying codes used by the University of the 
     District of Columbia; payments made in the last quarter and 
     year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total 
     payments made for the contract and any modifications, 
     extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each 
     contract in the last month;
       (4) all reprogramming requests and reports that have been 
     made by the University of the District of Columbia within the 
     last quarter in compliance with applicable law; and
       (5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational 
     structure of the University of the District of Columbia, 
     displaying previous and current control centers and 
     responsibility centers, the names of the organizational 
     entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member 
     supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the 
     structural change.
       (b) The Mayor, the Authority, and the Council shall provide 
     the Congress by February 1, 2001, a summary, analysis, and 
     recommendations on the information provided in the quarterly 
     reports.
       Sec. 128. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     made available to pay the fees of an attorney who represents 
     a party who prevails in an action, including an 
     administrative proceeding, brought against the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) if--
       (1) the hourly rate of compensation of the attorney exceeds 
     the hourly rate of compensation under section 11-2604(a), 
     District of Columbia Code; or
       (2) the maximum amount of compensation of the attorney 
     exceeds the maximum amount of compensation under section 11-
     2604(b)(1), District of Columbia Code, except that 
     compensation and reimbursement in excess of such maximum may 
     be approved for extended or complex representation in 
     accordance with section 11-2604(c), District of Columbia 
     Code.


                       Abortion Funds Restriction

       Sec. 129. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of 
     the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
     term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape 
     or incest.


                  Domestic Partners Funds Restriction

       Sec. 130. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits 
     Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-
     1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system 
     of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether 
     homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not 
     limited to registration for the purpose of extending 
     employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples 
     on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally 
     married couples.
       Sec. 131. The Superintendent of the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools shall submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, and the Council of the District of 
     Columbia no later than 15 calendar days after the end of each 
     quarter a report that sets forth--
       (1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
     date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year 
     expenditure projections versus budget, broken out on the 
     basis of control center, responsibility center, agency 
     reporting code, and object class, and for all funds, 
     including capital financing;
       (2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center, 
     responsibility center, detailed object, and agency reporting 
     code, and for all funding sources;
       (3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000 
     annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the 
     budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the 
     basis of control center, responsibility center, and agency 
     reporting code; and contract identifying codes used by the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools; payments made in the 
     last quarter and year-to-date, the total amount of the 
     contract and total payments made for the contract and any 
     modifications, extensions, renewals; and specific 
     modifications made to each contract in the last month;
       (4) all reprogramming requests and reports that are 
     required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of 
     Education; and
       (5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational 
     structure of the D.C. Public Schools, displaying previous and 
     current control centers and responsibility centers, the names 
     of the organizational entities that have been changed, the 
     name of the staff member supervising each entity affected, 
     and the reasons for the structural change.
       Sec. 132. (a) In General.--The Superintendent of the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools and the University of the 
     District of Columbia shall annually compile an accurate and 
     verifiable report on the positions and employees in the 
     public school system and the university, respectively. The 
     annual report shall set forth--
       (1) the number of validated schedule A positions in the 
     District of Columbia public schools and the University of the 
     District of Columbia for fiscal year 1999, fiscal year 2000, 
     and thereafter on full-time equivalent basis, including a 
     compilation of all positions by control center, 
     responsibility center, funding source, position type, 
     position title, pay plan, grade, and annual salary; and
       (2) a compilation of all employees in the District of 
     Columbia public schools and the University of the District of 
     Columbia as of the preceding December 31, verified as to its 
     accuracy in accordance with the functions that each employee 
     actually performs, by control center, responsibility center, 
     agency reporting code, program (including funding source), 
     activity, location for accounting purposes, job title, grade 
     and classification, annual salary, and position control 
     number.
       (b) Submission.--The annual report required by subsection 
     (a) of this section shall be submitted to the Congress, the 
     Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the Consensus 
     Commission, and the Authority, not later than February 15 of 
     each year.
       Sec. 133. (a) No later than October 1, 1999, or within 30 
     calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     which ever occurs later, and each succeeding year, the 
     Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools and 
     the University of the District of Columbia shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees, the Mayor, the 
     District of Columbia Council, the Consensus Commission, and 
     the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority, a revised appropriated funds 
     operating budget for the public school system and the 
     University of the District of

[[Page 18626]]

     Columbia for such fiscal year that is in the total amount of 
     the approved appropriation and that realigns budgeted data 
     for personal services and other-than-personal services, 
     respectively, with anticipated actual expenditures.
       (b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this 
     section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that 
     the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools 
     and the University of the District of Columbia submit to the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia for inclusion in the 
     Mayor's budget submission to the Council of the District of 
     Columbia pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act, Public Law 93-198, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 
     47-301).
       Sec. 134. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority, acting on behalf of the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) in formulating the 
     DCPS budget, the Board of Trustees of the University of the 
     District of Columbia, the Board of Library Trustees, and the 
     Board of Governors of the University of the District of 
     Columbia School of Law shall vote on and approve their 
     respective annual or revised budgets before submission to the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia for inclusion in the 
     Mayor's budget submission to the Council of the District of 
     Columbia in accordance with section 442 of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act, Public Law 93-198, as amended (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 47-301), or before submitting their respective 
     budgets directly to the Council.


                  Ceiling on Total Operating Expenses

       Sec. 135. (a) Ceiling on Total Operating Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the total amount appropriated in this Act for operating 
     expenses for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2000 
     under the caption ``Division of Expenses'' shall not exceed 
     the lesser of--
       (A) the sum of the total revenues of the District of 
     Columbia for such fiscal year; or
       (B) $5,522,779,000 (of which $152,753,000 shall be from 
     intra-District funds and $3,117,254,000 shall be from local 
     funds), which amount may be increased by the following:
       (i) proceeds of one-time transactions, which are expended 
     for emergency or unanticipated operating or capital needs 
     approved by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority; or
       (ii) after notification to the Council, additional 
     expenditures which the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia certifies will produce additional 
     revenues during such fiscal year at least equal to 200 
     percent of such additional expenditures, and that are 
     approved by the Authority.
       (2) Enforcement.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia and the Authority shall take such steps 
     as are necessary to assure that the District of Columbia 
     meets the requirements of this section, including the 
     apportioning by the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     appropriations and funds made available to the District 
     during fiscal year 2000, except that the Chief Financial 
     Officer may not reprogram for operating expenses any funds 
     derived from bonds, notes, or other obligations issued for 
     capital projects.
       (b) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in Ceiling.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Mayor, 
     in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer, during a 
     control year, as defined in section 305(4) of the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Act of 1995, approved April 17, 1995 (Public Law 104-8; 109 
     Stat. 152), may accept, obligate, and expend Federal, 
     private, and other grants received by the District government 
     that are not reflected in the amounts appropriated in this 
     Act.
       (2) Requirement of chief financial officer report and 
     authority approval.--No such Federal, private, or other grant 
     may be accepted, obligated, or expended pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) until--
       (A) the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     submits to the Authority a report setting forth detailed 
     information regarding such grant; and
       (B) the Authority has reviewed and approved the acceptance, 
     obligation, and expenditure of such grant in accordance with 
     review and approval procedures consistent with the provisions 
     of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Act of 1995.
       (3) Prohibition on spending in anticipation of approval or 
     receipt.--No amount may be obligated or expended from the 
     general fund or other funds of the District government in 
     anticipation of the approval or receipt of a grant under 
     paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection or in anticipation of the 
     approval or receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not 
     subject to such paragraph.
       (4) Quarterly reports.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia shall prepare a quarterly report setting 
     forth detailed information regarding all Federal, private, 
     and other grants subject to this subsection. Each such report 
     shall be submitted to the Council of the District of 
     Columbia, and to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 15 
     days after the end of the quarter covered by the report.
       (c) Report on Expenditures by Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority.--Not later than 20 calendar 
     days after the end of each fiscal quarter starting October 1, 
     1999, the Authority shall submit a report to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House, and 
     the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate providing 
     an itemized accounting of all non-appropriated funds 
     obligated or expended by the Authority for the quarter. The 
     report shall include information on the date, amount, 
     purpose, and vendor name, and a description of the services 
     or goods provided with respect to the expenditures of such 
     funds.
       (d) Application of Excess Revenues.--Local revenues 
     collected in excess of amounts required to support 
     appropriations in this Act for operating expenses for the 
     District of Columbia for fiscal year 2000 under the caption 
     ``Division of Expenses'' shall be applied first to a reserve 
     account not to exceed $250,000,000 to be used to finance 
     seasonal cash needs (in lieu of short-term borrowings); 
     second to accelerate repayment of cash borrowed from the 
     Water and Sewer Fund; and third to reduce the outstanding 
     long-term bonded indebtedness.
       Sec. 136. If a department or agency of the government of 
     the District of Columbia is under the administration of a 
     court-appointed receiver or other court-appointed official 
     during fiscal year 2000 or any succeeding fiscal year, the 
     receiver or official shall prepare and submit to the Mayor, 
     for inclusion in the annual budget of the District of 
     Columbia for the year, annual estimates of the expenditures 
     and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and 
     operation of the department or agency. All such estimates 
     shall be forwarded by the Mayor to the Council, for its 
     action pursuant to sections 446 and 603(c) of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act, without revision but subject to the 
     Mayor's recommendations. Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 
     1973 (87 Stat. 790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-101 
     et seq.) the Council may comment or make recommendations 
     concerning such annual estimates but shall have no authority 
     under such Act to revise such estimates.
       Sec. 137. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority and the Superintendent of 
     the District of Columbia Public Schools are hereby directed 
     to report to the Appropriations Committees of the Senate and 
     the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform 
     of the House of Representatives not later than April 1, 2000, 
     on all measures necessary and steps to be taken to ensure 
     that the District's Public Schools open on time to begin the 
     2000-2001 academic year.
       Sec. 138. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     rule, or regulation, an employee of the District of Columbia 
     public schools shall be--
       (1) classified as an Educational Service employee;
       (2) placed under the personnel authority of the Board of 
     Education; and
       (3) subject to all Board of Education rules.
       (b) School-based personnel shall constitute a separate 
     competitive area from nonschool-based personnel who shall not 
     compete with school-based personnel for retention purposes.


                Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles

       Sec. 139. (a) Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles.--
     Except as otherwise provided in this section, none of the 
     funds made available by this Act or by any other Act may be 
     used to provide any officer or employee of the District of 
     Columbia with an official vehicle unless the officer or 
     employee uses the vehicle only in the performance of the 
     officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term ``official duties'' does not include 
     travel between the officer's or employee's residence and 
     workplace (except (1) in the case of an officer or employee 
     of the Metropolitan Police Department who resides in the 
     District of Columbia or is otherwise designated by the Chief 
     of the Department; (2) at the discretion of the Fire Chief, 
     an officer or employee of the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical 
     Services Department who resides in the District of Columbia 
     and is on call 24 hours a day; (3) the Mayor of the District 
     of Columbia; and (4) the Chairman of the Council of the 
     District of Columbia).
       (b) Inventory of Vehicles.--The Chief Financial Officer of 
     the District of Columbia shall submit, by November 15, 1999, 
     an inventory, as of September 30, 1999, of all vehicles 
     owned, leased or operated by the District of Columbia 
     government. The inventory shall include, but not be limited 
     to, the department to which the vehicle is assigned; the year 
     and make of the vehicle; the acquisition date and cost; the 
     general condition of the vehicle; annual operating and 
     maintenance costs; current mileage; and whether the vehicle 
     is allowed to be taken home by a District officer or employee 
     and if so, the officer or employee's title and resident 
     location.

[[Page 18627]]

       Sec. 140. (a) Source of Payment for Employees Detailed 
     Within Government.--For purposes of determining the amount of 
     funds expended by any entity within the District of Columbia 
     government during fiscal year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year, any expenditures of the District government 
     attributable to any officer or employee of the District 
     government who provides services which are within the 
     authority and jurisdiction of the entity (including any 
     portion of the compensation paid to the officer or employee 
     attributable to the time spent in providing such services) 
     shall be treated as expenditures made from the entity's 
     budget, without regard to whether the officer or employee is 
     assigned to the entity or otherwise treated as an officer or 
     employee of the entity.
       (b) Modification of Reduction in Force Procedures.--The 
     District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel 
     Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), as amended, is 
     further amended in section 2408(a) by deleting ``1999'' and 
     inserting, ``2000''; in subsection (b), by deleting ``1999'' 
     and inserting ``2000''; in subsection (i), by deleting 
     ``1999'' and inserting, ``2000''; and in subsection (k), by 
     deleting ``1999'' and inserting, ``2000''.
       Sec. 141. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     later than 120 days after the date that a District of 
     Columbia Public Schools [DCPS] student is referred for 
     evaluation or assessment--
       (1) the District of Columbia Board of Education (referred 
     to in this section as the ``Board''), or its successor and 
     DCPS shall assess or evaluate a student who may have a 
     disability and who may require special education services; 
     and
       (2) if a student is classified as having a disability, as 
     defined in section 101(a)(1) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (84 Stat. 175; 20 U.S.C. 
     1401(a)(1)) or in section 7(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (87 Stat. 359; 29 U.S.C. 706(8)), the Board and DCPS 
     shall place that student in an appropriate program of special 
     education services.
       Sec. 142. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each agency of the Federal or District of 
     Columbia government shall provide to each recipient of the 
     assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 143. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the 
     District of Columbia government (including the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority) for fiscal year 2000 unless--
       (1) the audit is conducted by the Inspector General of the 
     District of Columbia pursuant to section 208(a)(4) of the 
     District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 1-1182.8(a)(4)); and
       (2) the audit includes a comparison of audited actual year-
     end results with the revenues submitted in the budget 
     document for such year and the appropriations enacted into 
     law for such year.
       Sec. 144. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     authorize any office, agency or entity to expend funds for 
     programs or functions for which a reorganization plan is 
     required but has not been approved by the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority. Appropriations made by this Act for such programs 
     or functions are conditioned only on the approval by the 
     Authority of the required reorganization plans.
       Sec. 145. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
     or regulation, the evaluation process and instruments for 
     evaluating District of Columbia Public School employees shall 
     be a non-negotiable item for collective bargaining purposes.
       Sec. 146. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or any 
     other officer or entity of the District government to provide 
     assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks 
     to require Congress to provide for voting representation in 
     Congress for the District of Columbia.
       Sec. 147. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used to transfer or confine inmates classified above the 
     medium security level, as defined by the Federal Bureau of 
     Prisons classification instrument, to the Northeast Ohio 
     Correctional Center located in Youngstown, Ohio.


                                reserve

       Sec. 148. Section 202(i) of the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 
     1995 (D.C. Code, sec. 47-392.1(i)), as added by section 155 
     of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public 
     Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-146) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(j) Reserve.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the 
     financial plans and budgets submitted pursuant to this Act 
     shall contain $150,000,000 for a reserve to be established by 
     the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia and 
     the Authority.
       ``(2) Expenditure.--The reserve shall only be expended 
     according to criteria established by the Chief Financial 
     Officer and approved by the Authority and the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate.''.
       Sec. 149. (a) No later than November 1, 1999, or within 30 
     calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     whichever occurs later, the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia shall submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, the Mayor, and the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority a revised appropriated funds operating budget for 
     all agencies of the District of Columbia government for such 
     fiscal year that is in the total amount of the approved 
     appropriation and that realigns budgeted data for personal 
     services and other-than-personal-services, respectively, with 
     anticipated actual expenditures.
       (b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this 
     section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that 
     the District of Columbia government submitted pursuant to 
     section 442 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, Public 
     Law 93-198, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).


                   Sterile Needles Funds Restriction

       Sec. 150. None of the Federal funds contained in this Act 
     may be used for any program of distributing sterile needles 
     or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.
       Sec. 151. None of the Federal funds contained in this Act 
     may be used to conduct any ballot initiative which seeks to 
     legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the 
     possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance 
     under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any 
     tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.


                   monitoring of real property leases

       Sec. 152. (a) Restrictions.--None of the funds contained in 
     this Act may be used to make rental payments under a lease 
     for the use of real property by the District of Columbia 
     government (including any independent agency of the District) 
     unless--
       (1) the lease and an abstract of the lease have been filed 
     with the central office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic 
     Development; and
       (2)(A) the District of Columbia government occupies the 
     property during the period of time covered by the rental 
     payment; or
       (B) within 60 days of enactment of this Act the Mayor 
     certifies to Congress and the landlord that occupancy is 
     impracticable and submits with the certification a plan to 
     terminate or renegotiate the lease or rental agreement.
       (b) Unoccupied Property.--After 120 days from the date of 
     enactment of this Act, none of the funds contained in this 
     Act may be used to make rental payments for property 
     described in subsection (a)(2)(B) of this section.
       (c) Semi-Annual Reports by Mayor.--Not later than 20 days 
     after the end of each six-month period that begins on October 
     1, 1999, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit a 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate listing the leases for the use 
     of real property by the District of Columbia government that 
     were in effect during the six-month period, and including for 
     each such lease the location of the property, the name of any 
     person with any ownership interest in the property, the rate 
     of payment, the period of time covered by the lease, and the 
     conditions under which the lease may be terminated.


               new leases and purchases of real property

       Sec. 153. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used to enter into a lease on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act (or to make rental payments under such 
     a lease) for the use of real property by the District of 
     Columbia government (including any independent agency of the 
     District) or to purchase real property for the use of the 
     District of Columbia government (including any independent 
     agency of the District) or to

[[Page 18628]]

     manage real property for the use of the District of Columbia 
     (including any independent agency of the District) unless--
       (1) the Mayor certifies to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate that existing 
     real property available to the District (whether leased or 
     owned by the District government) is not suitable for the 
     purposes intended;
       (2) notwithstanding any other provisions of law, there is 
     made available for sale or lease all property of the District 
     of Columbia which the Mayor from time to time determines is 
     surplus to the needs of the District of Columbia;
       (3) the Mayor implements a program for the periodic survey 
     of all District property to determine if it is surplus to the 
     needs of the District; and
       (4) the Mayor within 60 days of the date of enactment of 
     this Act has filed a report with the appropriations and 
     authorizing committees of the House and Senate providing a 
     comprehensive plan for the management of District of Columbia 
     real property assets and is proceeding with the 
     implementation of the plan.


              charter school construction and repair funds

       Sec. 154. Section 603(e)(2)(B) of the Student Loan 
     Marketing Association Reorganization Act of 1996 (Public Law 
     104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-293) is amended by inserting ``and 
     public charter'' after ``public''.


                   Disposal of Excess School Property

       Sec. 155. The Mayor, District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and the 
     Superintendent of Schools shall implement a process to 
     dispose of excess public school real property within 90 days 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 156. Section 2003 of the District of Columbia School 
     Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; D.C. Code, sec. 31-
     2851) is amended by striking ``during the period'' and ``and 
     ending 5 years after such date.''


                   charter school sibling preference

       Sec. 157. Section 2206(c) of the District of Columbia 
     School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; D.C. Code, 
     sec. 31-2853.16(c)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``, except that a preference in admission may be 
     given to an applicant who is a sibling of a student already 
     attending or selected for admission to the public charter 
     school in which the applicant is seeking enrollment.''


                  buyouts and other management reforms

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 158. (a) Transfer of Funds.--There is hereby 
     transferred from the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (hereafter 
     referred to as the ``Authority'') to the District of Columbia 
     the sum of $20,000,000 for severance payments to individuals 
     separated from employment during fiscal year 2000 (under such 
     terms and conditions as the Mayor considers appropriate), 
     expanded contracting authority of the Mayor, and the 
     implementation of a system of managed competition among 
     public and private providers of goods and services by and on 
     behalf of the District of Columbia: Provided, That such funds 
     shall be used only in accordance with a plan agreed to by the 
     Council and the Mayor and approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       (b) Source of Funds.--The amount transferred under 
     subsection (a) shall be derived from interest earned on 
     accounts held by the Authority on behalf of the District of 
     Columbia.


                        fourteenth street bridge

       Sec. 159. (a) In General.--The District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority 
     (hereafter referred to as the ``Authority''), working with 
     the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Director of the National 
     Park Service, shall carry out a project to complete all 
     design requirements and all requirements for compliance with 
     the National Environmental Policy Act for the construction of 
     expanded lane capacity for the Fourteenth Street Bridge.
       (b) Source of Funds.--In carrying out the project under 
     subsection (a), the Authority shall use funds contained in 
     the escrow account held by the Authority pursuant to section 
     134 of division A of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-552), for infrastructure needs of the District 
     of Columbia, except that the amount used may not exceed 
     $7,500,000.


                 Anacostia River Environmental Cleanup

                          (transfer of funds)

       Sec. 160. (a) In General.--The Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia shall carry out through the Army Corps of Engineers, 
     an Anacostia River environmental cleanup program.
       (b) Source of Funds.--There are hereby transferred to the 
     Mayor from the escrow account held by the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority pursuant to section 134 of division A of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-
     552), for infrastructure needs of the District of Columbia, 
     $5,000,000.


                    crime victims compensation fund

       Sec. 161. (a) Prohibiting Payment of Administrative Costs 
     From Fund.--Section 16(e) of the Victims of Violent Crime 
     Compensation Act of 1996 (D.C. Code, sec. 3-435(e)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and administrative costs necessary to 
     carry out this chapter''; and
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, and no monies in the Fund may be used for any 
     other purpose.''.
       (b) Annual Transfer of Unobligated Balances to Treasury.--
     Section 16 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 3-435) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Any unobligated balance existing in the Fund as of 
     the end of each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2000) 
     shall be transferred to the Treasury of the United States.''.


            duties of chief financial officers to follow act

       Sec. 162. (a) Certification.--None of the funds contained 
     in this Act may be used after the expiration of the 60-day 
     period that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     to pay the salary of any chief financial officer of any 
     office of the District of Columbia government (including any 
     independent agency of the District) who has not filed a 
     certification with the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer 
     of the District of Columbia that the officer understands the 
     duties and restrictions applicable to the officer and their 
     agency as a result of this Act (and the amendments made by 
     this Act).
       Sec. 163. The proposed budget of the government of the 
     District of Columbia for fiscal year 2001 that is submitted 
     by the District to Congress shall specify potential 
     adjustments that might become necessary in the event that the 
     management savings achieved by the District during the year 
     do not meet the level of management savings projected by the 
     District under the proposed budget.
       Sec. 164. In submitting any document showing the budget for 
     an office of the District of Columbia government (including 
     an independent agency of the District) that contains a 
     category of activities labeled as ``other'', 
     ``miscellaneous'', or a similar general, nondescriptive term, 
     the document shall include a description of the types of 
     activities covered in the category and a detailed breakdown 
     of the amount allocated for each such activity.


corps of engineers authorization to perform repairs and improvements on 
                        the southwest waterfront

       Sec. 165. In using the funds made available under this Act 
     or any other Act for carrying out improvements to the 
     Southwest Waterfront in the District of Columbia (including 
     upgrading marina dock pilings and paving and restoring 
     walkways in the marina and fish market areas) for the 
     portions of Federal property in the Southwest quadrant of the 
     District of Columbia within Lots 847 and 848, a portion of 
     Lot 846, and the unassessed Federal real property adjacent to 
     Lot 848 in Square 473, any entity of the District of Columbia 
     government (including the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority or its 
     designee) may place orders for engineering and construction 
     and related services with the Chief of Engineers of the U.S. 
     Army Corps of Engineers. The Chief of Engineers may accept 
     such orders on a reimbursable basis and may provide any part 
     of such services by contract. In providing such services, the 
     Chief of Engineers shall follow the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations and the implementing Department of Defense 
     regulations. This section shall apply to fiscal year 2000 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter.
       Sec. 166. It is the sense of Congress that the District of 
     Columbia should not impose or take into consideration any 
     height, square footage, set-back, or other construction or 
     zoning requirements in authorizing the issuance of industrial 
     revenue bonds for a project of the American National Red 
     Cross at 2025 E Street Northwest, Washington, D.C., in as 
     much as this project is subject to approval of the National 
     Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts 
     pursuant to section 11 of the joint resolution entitled 
     ``Joint Resolution to grant authority for the erection of a 
     permanent building for the American National Red Cross, 
     District of Columbia Chapter, Washington, District of 
     Columbia'', approved July 1, 1947 (Public Law 100-637; 36 
     U.S.C. 300108 note).
       This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.
                        TITLE II--TAX REDUCTION

     SEC. 201. COMMENDING REDUCTION OF TAXES BY 
                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       Congress commends the District of Columbia for its action 
     to reduce taxes, and ratifies D.C. Act 13-111 (commonly known 
     as the Service Improvement and Fiscal Year 2000 Budget 
     Support Act of 1999).

     SEC. 202. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this title may be construed to limit the ability 
     of the Council of the District of Columbia to amend or repeal 
     any provision of law described in this title.


[[Page 18629]]

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
through page 66, line 13 be considered as read, printed in the Record, 
and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this portion of the bill?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       Page 65, insert after line 24 the following:


                       sex offender registration

       Sec. 167. (a) Permitting Court Services and Offender 
     Supervision Agency to Carry Out Sex Offender Registration.--
     Section 11233(c) of the National Capital Revitalization and 
     Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (DC Code, sec. 24-
     1233(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Sex offender registration.--The Agency shall carry 
     out sex offender registration functions in the District of 
     Columbia, and shall have the authority to exercise all powers 
     and functions relating to sex offender registration that are 
     granted to the Agency under any District of Columbia law.''.
       (b) Authority During Transition to Full Operation of 
     Agency.--
       (1) Authority of pretrial services, parole, adult probation 
     and offender supervision trustee.--Notwithstanding section 
     11232(b)(1) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
     Government Improvement Act of 1997 (DC Code, sec. 24-
     1232(b)(1)), the Pretrial Services, Parole, Adult Probation 
     and Offender Supervision Trustee appointed under section 
     11232(a) of such Act (hereafter referred to as the 
     ``Trustee'') shall, in accordance with section 11232 of such 
     Act, exercise the powers and functions of the Court Services 
     and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia 
     (hereafter referred to as the ``Agency'') relating to sex 
     offender registration (as granted to the Agency under any 
     District of Columbia law) only upon the Trustee's 
     certification that the Trustee is able to assume such powers 
     and functions.
       (2) Authority of metropolitan police department.--During 
     the period that begins on the date of the enactment of the 
     Sex Offender Registration Emergency Act of 1999 and ends on 
     the date the Trustee makes the certification described in 
     paragraph (1), the Metropolitan Police Department of the 
     District of Columbia shall have the authority to carry out 
     any powers and functions relating to sex offender 
     registration that are granted to the Agency or to the Trustee 
     under any District of Columbia law.

  Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that we have received a request 
for from the District of Columbia, and in particular Linda Cropp, the 
council member who serves as the chairman of the city council.
  Mr. Chairman, this is to permit the Federally run Office of Offender 
Supervision, the Court Services and Offender Service Agency, to 
administer the sex offender registration pursuant to local ordinance 
recently adopted by the District of Columbia City Council.
  The City Council, on July 13, unanimously enacted their Sex Offender 
Registration Emergency Act of 1999 and the Sex Offender Registration 
Temporary Act of 1999. This establishes an effective sex offender 
registration and community notification system within the District.
  Because the Federal agency, the Court Services and Offender 
Supervision Agency, is now involved with the supervision of persons on 
pretrial release, parole and probation, it is necessary that they be 
authorized to administer the sex offender registration program. This 
legislation permits them to do that. That also permits the District to 
come into compliance with Federal law requiring these registries to 
qualify for different Federal funding.
  The community notification portion, I understand, will be conducted 
by officials of the District Government, whereas the registration 
portion will be conducted under this amendment by the Federal agency 
that is involved with those that are being supervised while they are 
free on pretrial release, probation, parole, and so forth.
  Mr. Chairman, we have worked with the ranking member, and I 
understand we have the consent of the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia as well, and I believe this amendment should prompt no 
objection from anyone and urge it be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter and supporting 
documentation with regard to this particular issue:
                                           Council of the District


                                                  of Columbia,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1999.
     Re Federal legislation to effectuate D.C. sex offender 
         registry.

     Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Norton: We write to request that you 
     attach the enclosed draft legislation to the next available 
     vehicle in Congress which may present itself this week during 
     the budget process.
       At the Council's legislative session on July 13, 1999, we 
     voted unanimously to enact the Sex Offender Registration 
     Emergency Act of 1999 and the Sex Offender Registration 
     Temporary Act of 1999. The purpose of this legislation was to 
     establish an effective sex offender registration and 
     community notification system in the District of Columbia and 
     to bring the District into compliance with the Jacob 
     Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent 
     Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071), which 
     establishes national criteria for such programs. A copy of 
     the emergency act is enclosed.
       The Council vested the Metropolitan Police Department 
     (``MPD'') with community notification duties regarding sex 
     offenders. (See section 12 at pp. 10-11.) The Court Services 
     and Offender Supervision Agency (``Agency''), established 
     pursuant to section 11233 of the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, 
     will be charged with the task of registering sex offenders in 
     the District. (See sections 5, 8, 9 and 10.) The registration 
     functions including obtaining the initial registration 
     information of sex offenders and informing them of 
     registration requirements, periodically verifying address 
     information and other registration information, reporting 
     changes in address, notifying other jurisdictions when sex 
     offenders leave the District, entering information on D.C. 
     offenders in the National Sex Offender Registry and providing 
     information on sex offenders to the MPD. Since the Agency is 
     already responsible for tracking and supervising released sex 
     offenders under the Revitalization Act, it is efficient and 
     cost-effective to have this entity perform registration 
     functions.
       The U.S. Attorney's Office has informed us that federal 
     legislation, in the form enclosed, is needed to clarify the 
     ability of the Agency to carry out its registration 
     functions. In view of the sensitive nature of monitoring sex 
     offenders, it is important that each affected governmental 
     entity be clearly empowered to perform its functions and that 
     the transition of registration duties from the MPD to the 
     Agency be as seamless and prompt as possible.
       Thank you for your assistance. Should you have any 
     questions, we are available to discuss this matter with you 
     at any time.
           Sincerely,
     Linda W. Cropp,
       Chairman.
     Harold Brazil,
       Chairman, Judiciary Committee.
       Enclosures: Draft federal legislation; Sex Offender 
     Registration Emergency Act of 1999.
                                  ____


     SEC.   . SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION.

       (a) Offender Supervision Agency.--Section 11233(c) of the 
     National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
     Improvement Act of 1997 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Sex Offender Registration.--The Agency shall carry 
     out sex offender registration functions in the District of 
     Columbia, and shall have the authority to exercise all powers 
     and functions authorized for the Agency by any District of 
     Columbia law relating to sex offender registration.''.
       (b) Offender Supervision Trustee.--(1) As used in this 
     subsection--
       (A) ``Act'' means the Sex Offender Registration Emergency 
     Act of 1999;
       (B) ``Agency'' means the Court Services and Offender 
     Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia; and
       (C) ``Trustee'' means the Trustee appointed under section 
     11232(a) of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
     Government Improvement Act of 1997.
       (2) The Trustee shall have the authority to exercise all 
     powers and functions authorized for the Agency or the Trustee 
     by the Act or by any other District of Columbia law relating 
     to sex offender registration, effective immediately upon the 
     Trustee's certification that the Trustee is able to assume 
     these powers and functions. Pending a certification by the 
     Trustee under this paragraph, the Metropolitan Police 
     Department shall continue to have the authority to carry out

[[Page 18630]]

     any functions assigned to the Agency or Trustee under the Act 
     or other District of Columbia law relating to sex offender 
     registration.
                                  ____



                              explanation

       The District of Columbia government has recently approved 
     emergency legislation--the Sex Offender Registration 
     Emergency Act of 1999--which assigns sex offender 
     registration functions (other than community notification 
     functions) to the Court Services and Offender Supervision 
     Agency for the District of Columbia. This section validates 
     this assignment of responsibility, and ensures an 
     uninterrupted transition of sex offender registration 
     functions from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department to the 
     Offender Supervision Agency. The enactment of this section is 
     necessary to implement an effective sex offender registration 
     program in the District and to enable the District to comply 
     with the federal law standards for such programs.
       The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071) 
     establishes minimum national standards for state sex offender 
     registration and notification programs. See 42 U.S.C. 14071 
     (Wetterling Act); 64 FR 572-87, 3590 (Wetterling Act 
     guidelines). At the present time, all 50 states and the 
     District of Columbia have established sex offender 
     registration programs, and are attempting to bring their 
     programs into compliance with the Wetterling Act standards. 
     States (including D.C.) which fail to comply with the 
     Wetterling Act standards within the applicable statutory time 
     frames are subject to a mandatory 10% reduction of federal 
     Byrne Grant funding--a reduction that would cost D.C. about 
     $200,000 a year at current funding levels.
       The sex offender registration provisions initially enacted 
     in the District of Columbia (D.C. Code Sec. Sec. 24-1101 
     through 1117) did not achieve full compliance with the 
     Wetterling Act standards, and have proven to be largely 
     dysfunctional, for a number of reasons: (1) The D.C. 
     registration provisions did not reflect new requirements that 
     Congress added to the Wetterling Act in relatively recent 
     amendments--for example, expanded lifetime registration 
     requirements for the most violent and recidivistic sex 
     offenders, and provisions promoting the registration of sex 
     offenders in states where they work or attend school as well 
     as states of residence. (2) The D.C. registration provisions 
     could not operate as intended because they predated the 
     reforms of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
     Government Improvement Act of 1997. For example, the D.C. 
     provisions directed the D.C. Department of Corrections to 
     obtain registration information from incarcerated sex 
     offenders and to advise them of registration obligations at 
     the time of release--but this assignment of responsibility 
     will not work in the future because all incarcerated D.C. 
     felons will be transferred to federal Bureau of Prisons 
     facilities under the Revitalization Act's reforms. (3) 
     Experience has shown other problems with the original D.C. 
     provisions. For example, the original D.C. system relied on a 
     volunteer Advisory Council for risk assessments of sex 
     offenders as the basis for registration and notification 
     requirements. Since the Advisory Council has been totally 
     dysfunctional as a practical matter, there is currently no 
     community notification regarding registered sex offenders in 
     D.C., notwithstanding the Wetterling Act's community 
     notification requirements and the establishment of community 
     notification programs in most states.
       The D.C. government has accordingly approved, in the form 
     of emergency legislation, a new act (the ``Sex Offender 
     Registration Emergency Act of 1999'') which will enable the 
     District to implement an effective sex offender registration 
     and notification program and achieve compliance with the 
     federal Wetterling Act standards for such programs. Under the 
     new D.C. legislation, the Metropolitan Police Department will 
     be responsible for the community notification aspects of the 
     program. Other sex offender registration functions will be 
     the responsibility of the Court Services and Offender 
     Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (hereafter, 
     the ``Agency'')--the entity established by the D.C. 
     Revitalization Act to handle adult offender post-conviction 
     supervision in the District. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 11232-33 
     of the Revitalization Act, the Agency will formally assume 
     its duties as a federal executive agency at the end of a 
     transitional period, and currently operates as an independent 
     Trusteeship.
       Since the Agency is responsible in any event for tracking 
     and oversight of released sex offenders in the District as 
     part of its supervision responsibilities, it is sensible and 
     efficient to vest responsibility for sex offender 
     registration functions in the same agency. The contemplated 
     functions of the Agency under the new D.C. legislation 
     include (inter alia) obtaining the initial registration 
     information on sex offenders and informing them of 
     registration requirements, periodically verifying address 
     information and other registration information; adopting 
     procedures for reporting of change of address or other 
     changes in registration information by sex offenders; 
     notifying registration authorities in other jurisdictions 
     when sex offenders leave D.C.; maintaining and operating the 
     sex offender registry for D.C.; entering information on D.C. 
     sex offenders in the National Sex Offender Registry; and 
     providing information on sex offenders to the Metropolitan 
     Police Department and other law enforcement and governmental 
     agencies as appropriate.
       Because of the federal character of the Agency, 
     complementary federal legislation is needed for the Agency to 
     actually assume this role. The new D.C. sex offender 
     registration legislation (the Sex Offender Registration 
     Emergency Act of 1999) recognizes this need, providing in 
     Sec. 18 that the Metropolitan Police Department shall have 
     the authority to carry out the Agency's functions under the 
     act, ''[p]ending the enactment of a federal law that 
     authorizes the Agency to carry out sex offender registration 
     functions in the District of Columbia.''
       The proposal in this section provides the necessary federal 
     legislation. Subsection (a) in the section amends the 
     specification of permanent functions of the Agency in 
     Sec. 11233(c) of the Revitalization Act to include carrying 
     out sex offender registration functions in D.C., and provides 
     for the Agency's exercise of all powers and functions 
     authorized for the Agency by the D.C. sex offender 
     registration laws.
       Subsection (b) in the section addresses more immediate 
     transitional issues. The Agency in its current form is the 
     office of the Trustee established by section 11232 of the 
     Revitalization Act. Subsection (b) provides, in part, that 
     the Trustee shall have the authority to exercise all powers 
     and functions authorized for the Agency or the Trustee by the 
     D.C. emergency legislation or any other D.C. law relating to 
     sex offender registration. as indicated above, this includes 
     (under the emergency legislation) such measures as adopting 
     and implementing requirements and procedures for obtaining, 
     periodically verifying, and keeping current sex offender 
     registration information; maintaining the sex offender 
     registry for the District of Columbia; participating in the 
     National Sex Offender Registry on behalf of the District; and 
     providing information on sex offenders to the Metropolitan 
     Police Department and other law enforcement and governmental 
     agencies. The subsection refers to other D.C. laws relating 
     to sex offender registration, as well as to the current 
     emergency legislation, because the emergency legislation 
     lapses after 90 days, and will be succeeded by temporary and 
     permanent D.C. sex offender registration acts of similar 
     character that the Trustee will need to implement.
       Since any gap between the end of the Metropolitan Police 
     Department's exercise of these functions and the start of the 
     Trustee's exercise of these functions could bring about an 
     abrupt cessation of all sex offender registration in the 
     District, it is important to ensure a seamless transition 
     that will result in no interruption of sex offender 
     registration. Subsection (b) accordingly provides that the 
     transition of functions will occur when the Trustee certifies 
     that the Trustee is able to assume the pertinent powers and 
     functions. This will enable the Trustee to make necessary 
     institutional arrangements prior to the transition, such as 
     training of personnel in sex offender registration 
     requirements and procedures. Upon the Trustee's 
     certification, the Trustee will be authorized to immediately 
     exercise these powers and functions. Pending the Trustee's 
     certification, the Metropolitan Police Department will retain 
     the authority to carry out all functions relating to sex 
     offender registration.

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment, and would simply say that we are happy that it is in the 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma.
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

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

       Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-263 offered by 
     Mr. Tiahrt:
       On page 56 strike lines 18 through 22 and insert in lieu, 
     thereof the following:


                   sterile needles funds restriction

       Sec. 150. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used for any program of distributing sterile needles or 
     syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug, or 
     for any payment to any individual or entity who carries out 
     any such program.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment, if passed, will retain current law, which 
says simply that we will not use public

[[Page 18631]]

funds or tax dollars to provide needles for injection drug abusers to 
inject illegal drugs into their veins. In other words, our taxes will 
not be spent to enable injection drug abusers to continue a destructive 
behavior.
  Mr. Chairman, that was the will of the House last year, it was passed 
by the Senate, and it was signed by the President. The President's 
appointed drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, supports this language, 
which publicly opposes publicly funded needle exchange programs. Let me 
give the highlights of his letter to me, which is shown on this chart 
here.
  He says basically that the public health risks outweigh the benefits; 
that in needle exchange programs treatment should be our priority; that 
this sends the wrong message; and that this places disadvantaged 
neighborhoods at a greater risk.
  These are very good reasons why public funds should not be used to 
enable people to continue their destructive behavior. As General 
McCaffrey also says in his letter, science is uncertain. The supporters 
of needle exchange programs cite successful studies. I have read many 
of these studies and they are very inconclusive. For example, the study 
that supports the Baltimore needle exchange program simply measures the 
amount of returned needles that are positive with HIV. It does not 
account for those needles which are not returned, it does not account 
for those needles which are shared by drug abusers, but it does say 
that the needle exchange program is a success.
  The needle exchange program is not a success, Mr. Chairman. As the 
Associated Press reported on July 5, this year, the Johns Hopkins 
University School of Public Health found in their study that in 
Baltimore, after 5 years of a needle exchange program, that 9 out of 10 
needle-using addicts are infected with Hepatitis C, a blood-borne virus 
transmitted by needles. Nine out of 10 are infected with the deadly 
virus. If this is a success, then how do we define failure?
  There have been more complete long-term studies in Montreal and 
Vancouver. These studies of needle exchange programs, which have been 
going on for more than a decade, reveal that the death rate among 
illegal drug users has skyrocketed; that injection drug abusers are 
twice as likely to become HIV positive if they are involved in a needle 
exchange program than if they were not involved in the program. They 
also say the crime rate around the needle exchange program increases.
  There has been a lot of confusing information around. For example, 
there is a letter by Surgeon General C. Everett Koop saying he supports 
the needle program. He does say it is not a panacea for all settings, 
but there was a conversation between the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn), who is also a physician; and I would like the gentleman from 
Oklahoma to discuss with my colleagues his conversation with C. Everett 
Koop of just yesterday.

              [From the Policy Review, July-August, 1998]

                          Killing Them Softly

                            (By Joe Loconte)

       The Clinton administration says giving clean needles to 
     drug users will slow the spread of AIDS and save lives. But 
     former addicts--and the specialists who treat them--say their 
     greatest threats come from the soul-destroying culture of 
     addiction.
       In a midrise office building on Manhattan's West 37th 
     Street, about two blocks south of the Port Authority bus 
     terminal, sits the Positive Health Project, one of 11 needle-
     exchange outlets in New York City. This particular 
     neighborhood, dotted by X-rated video stores, peep shows, and 
     a grimy hot dog stand, could probably tolerate some positive 
     health. But it's not clear that's what the program's patrons 
     are getting.
       The clients are intravenous (IV) drug users. They swap 
     their used needles for clean ones and, it is hoped, avoid the 
     AIDS virus, at least until their next visit. There's no 
     charge, no hassles, no meddlesome questions. That's just the 
     way Walter, a veteran heroin user, likes it.
       ``Just put me on an island and don't mess with me,'' he 
     says, lighting up a cigarette.
       A tall, thinnish man, Walter seems weary for his 40-some 
     years. Like many of the estimated 250,000 IV drug users in 
     this city, he has spent years shooting up and has bounced in 
     and out of detoxification programs. ``Don't get the idea in 
     your mind you're going to control it,'' he says. ``I thought 
     I could control it. But dope's a different thing. You just 
     want it.'' Can he imagine his life without drugs? ``I'm past 
     that,'' he says, his face tightening. ``The only good thing I 
     do is getting high.


                      heroin first, then breathing

       Supporters of needle-exchange programs (NEPs), from AIDS 
     activists to Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna 
     Shalala, seem to have reached the same verdict on Walter's 
     life. They take his drug addiction as a given, but want to 
     keep him free of HIV by making sure he isn't borrowing dirty 
     syringes. Says Shalala, ``This is another life-saving 
     intervention.'' That message is gaining currency, thanks in 
     part to at least 112 programs in 29 states, distributing 
     millions of syringes each year.
       Critics say free needles just make it easier for addicts to 
     go about their business: abusing drugs. Ronn Constable, a 
     Brooklynite who used heroin and cocaine for nearly 20 years, 
     says he would have welcomed the needle-exchange program--for 
     saving him money. ``An addict doesn't want to spend a dollar 
     on anything else but his drugs,'' he says.
       Do needle exchanges, then, save lives or fuel addiction?
       The issue flared up earlier this year when Shalala 
     indicated the Clinton Administration would lift the ban on 
     federal funding. Barry McCaffrey, the national drug policy 
     chief, denounced the move, saying it would sanction drug use. 
     Fearing a political debacle, the White House upheld the 
     federal ban but continues to trumpet the effectiveness of 
     NEPs. Meanwhile, Representative Gerald Solomon and Senator 
     Paul Coverdell are pushing legislation in Congress to extend 
     the prohibition indefinitely.
       There is more than politics at work here. The debate 
     reveals a deepening philosophical rift between the medical 
     and moral approaches to coping with social ills.
       Joined by much of the scientific community, the Clinton 
     administration has tacitly embraced a profoundly misguided 
     notion: that we must not confront drug abusers on moral or 
     religious grounds. Instead, we should use medical 
     interventions to minimize the harm their behavior invites. 
     Directors of needle-exchange outlets pride themselves on 
     running ``nonjudgmental'' programs. While insisting they do 
     not encourage illegal drug use, suppliers distribute ``safe 
     crack kits'' explaining the best ways to inject crack 
     cocaine. Willie Easterlins, an outreach worker at a needle-
     stocked van in Brooklyn, sums up the philosophy this way: ``I 
     have to give you a needle. I can't judge,'' he says. ``That's 
     the first thing they teach us.''
       This approach, however well intentioned, ignores the soul-
     controlling darkness of addiction and the moral freefall that 
     sustains it. ``When addicts talk about enslavement, they're 
     not exaggerating,'' says Terry Horton, the medical director 
     of Phoenix House, one of the nation's largest residential 
     treatment centers. ``It is their first and foremost priority. 
     Heroin first, then breathing, then food.''
       It is true that needle-sharing among IV drug users is a 
     major source of HIV transmission, and that the incidence of 
     HIV is rising most rapidly among this group--a population of 
     more than a million people. Last year, about 30 percent of 
     all new HIV infections were linked to IV drug use. The 
     Clinton administration is correct to call this a major 
     public-health risk.
       Nevertheless, NEP advocates seem steeped in denial about 
     the behavioral roots of the crisis, conduct left unchallenged 
     by easy access to clean syringes. Most IV drug users, in 
     fact, die not from HIV-tainted needles but from other health 
     problems, overdoses, or homicide. By evading issues of 
     personal responsibility, the White House and its NEP allies 
     are neglecting the most effective help for drug abusers; 
     enrollment in tough-minded treatment programs enforced by 
     drug courts. Moreover, in the name of ``saving lives,'' they 
     seem prepared to surrender countless addicts to life on the 
     margins--an existence of scheming, scamming, disease, and 
     premature death.


                            Curious Science

       Over the last decade, NEPs have secured funding from local 
     departments of public health to establish outlets in 71 
     cities. But that may be as far as their political argument 
     will take them: Federal law prohibits federal money from 
     flowing to the programs until it can be proved they prevent 
     AIDS without encouraging drug use.
       It's no surprise, then, that advocates are trying to enlist 
     science as an ally. They claim that numerous studies of NEPs 
     prove they are effective. Says Sandra Thurman, the director 
     of the Office of National AIDS Policy, ``There is very little 
     doubt that these programs reduce HIV transmission.'' In 
     arguing for federal funding, a White House panel on AIDS 
     recently cited ``clear scientific evidence of the efficacy of 
     such programs.''
       The studies, though suggestive, prove no such thing. 
     Activists tout the results of a New Haven study, published in 
     the American Journal of Medicine, saying the program reduces 
     HIV among participants by a third. Not exactly. Researchers 
     tested needles from anonymous users--not the addicts 
     themselves--to see if they contained HIV. They never measured 
     ``seroconversion rates,'' the portion of participants who 
     became HIV

[[Page 18632]]

     positive during the study. Even Peter Lurie, a University of 
     Michigan researcher and avid NEP advocate, admits that ``the 
     validity of testing of syringes is limited.'' A likely 
     explanation for the decreased presence of HIV in syringes, 
     according to scientists, is sampling error.
       Another significant report was published in 1993 by the 
     University of California and funded by the U.S. Centers for 
     Disease Control. A panel reviewed 21 studies on the impact of 
     NEPs on HIV infection rates. But the best the authors could 
     say for the programs was that none showed a higher prevalence 
     of HIV among program clients.
       Even those results don't mean much. Panel members rated the 
     scientific quality of the studies on a five-point scale: one 
     meant ``not valid,'' three ``acceptable,'' and five 
     ``excellent.'' Only two of the studies earned ratings of 
     three or higher. Of those, neither showed a reduction in HIV 
     levels. No wonder the authors concluded that the data simply 
     do not, and for methodological reasons probably cannot, 
     provide clear evidence that needle exchanges decrease HIV 
     infection rates.


                            The Missing Link

       The most extensive review of needle-exchange studies was 
     commissioned in 1993 by the U.S. Department of Health and 
     Human Services (HHS), which directed the National Academy of 
     Sciences (NAS) to oversee the project. Their report, 
     ``Preventing HIV Transmission: The Role of Sterile Needles 
     and Bleach,'' was issued in 1995 and set off a political 
     firestorm.
       ``Well-implemented needle-exchange programs can be 
     effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not increase 
     the use of illegal drugs,'' a 15-member panel concluded. It 
     recommended lifting the ban on federal funding for NEPs, 
     along with laws against possession of injection 
     paraphernalia. The NAS report has emerged as the bible for 
     true believers of needle exchange.
       It is not likely to stand the test of time. A truly 
     scientific trial testing the ability of NEPs to reduce 
     needle-sharing and HIV transmission would set up two similar, 
     randomly selected populations of drug users. One group would 
     be given access to free needles, the other would not. 
     Researchers would follow them for at least a year, taking 
     periodic blood tests.
       None of the studies reviewed by NAS researchers, however, 
     were designed in this way. Their methodological problems are 
     legion: Sample sizes are often too small to be statistically 
     meaningful. Participants are self-selected, so that the more 
     health-conscious could be skewing the results. As many as 60 
     percent of study participants drop out. And researchers rely 
     on self-reporting, a notoriously untrustworthy tool.
       ``Nobody has done the basic science yet,'' says David 
     Murray, the research director of the Statistical Assessment 
     Service, a watchdog group in Washington, D.C. ``If this were 
     the FDA applying the standard for a new drug, they would 
     [block] it right there.''
       The NAS panel admitted its conclusions were not based on 
     reviews of well-designed trials. Such studies, the authors 
     agreed, simply do not exist. Not to worry, they said: ``The 
     limitations of individual studies do not necessarily preclude 
     us from being able to reach scientifically valid 
     conclusions.'' When all of the studies are considered 
     together, they argued, the results are compelling.
       ``That's like tossing a bunch of broken Christmas ornaments 
     in a box and claiming you have something nice and new and 
     usable,'' Murray says. ``What you have is a lot of broken 
     ornaments.'' Two of the three physicians on the NAS panel, 
     Lawrence Brown and Herbert Kleber, agree. They deny their 
     report established anything like a scientific link between 
     lower HIV rates and needle exchanges. ``The existing data is 
     flawed,'' says Kleber, executive vice president for medical 
     research at Columbia University. ``NEPs may, in theory, be 
     effective, but the data doesn't prove that they are.''
       Some needle-exchange advocates acknowledge the dearth of 
     hard science. Don Des Jarlais, a researcher at New York's 
     Beth Israel Medical Center, writes in a 1996 report that 
     ``there has been no direct evidence that participation is 
     associated with a lower risk'' of HIV infection. Lurie, 
     writing in the American Journal of Epidemiology, says that 
     ``no one study, on its own, should be used to declare the 
     programs effective.'' Nevertheless, supporters insist, the 
     ``pattern of evidence'' is sufficient to march ahead with the 
     programs.


                             mixed results

       That argument might make sense if all the best studies 
     created a happy, coherent picture. They don't. In fact, more-
     recent and better-controlled studies cast serious doubt on 
     the ability of NEPs to reduce HIV infection.
       In 1996, Vancouver researchers followed 1,006 intravenous 
     cocaine and heroin users who visited needles exchanges, 
     conducting periodic blood tests and interviews. The results, 
     published in the British research journal AIDS, were not 
     encouraging: About 40 percent of the test group reported 
     borrowing a used needle in the preceding six months. Worse, 
     after only eight months, 18.6 percent of those initially HIV 
     negative became infected with the virus.
       Dr. Steffanie Strathdee, of the British Columbia Centre for 
     Excellence in HIV/AIDS, was the report's lead researcher. She 
     found it ``particularly disturbing'' that needle-sharing 
     among program participants, despite access to clean syringes, 
     is common. Though an NEP advocate, Strathdee concedes that 
     the high HIV rates are ``alarming.'' Shepherd Smith, founder 
     of Americans for a Sound AIDS/HIV Policy, says that compared 
     to similar drug-using populations in the United States, the 
     Vancouver results are ``disastrous.''
       Though it boasts the largest needle-exchange program in 
     North America, Vancouver is straining under an AIDS epidemic. 
     When its NEP began in 1988, HIV prevalence among IV drug 
     users was less than 2 percent. Today it's about 23 percent, 
     despite a citywide program that dispenses 2.5 million needles 
     a year.
       A 1997 Montreal study is even more troubling. It showed 
     that addicts who used needle exchanges were more than twice 
     as likely to become infected with HIV as those who didn't. 
     Published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, the report 
     found that 33 percent of NEP users and 13 percent of nonusers 
     became infected during the study period. Moreover, about 
     three out of four program clients continued to share needles, 
     roughly the same rate as nonparticipants.
       The results are hard to dismiss. The report, though it did 
     not rely on truly random selection, is the most sophisticated 
     attempt so far to overcome the weaknesses of previous NEP 
     studies. Researchers worked with a statistically significant 
     sample (about 1,500), established test groups with better 
     controls and lower dropout rates, and took greater care to 
     account for ``confounding variables.'' They followed each 
     participant for an average of 21 months, taking blood samples 
     every six months.
       Blood samples don't lie. Attending an NEP was ``a strong 
     predictor'' of the risk of contracting HIV, according to 
     Julie Bruneau of the University of Montreal, the lead 
     researcher. Bruneau's team then issued a warning: ``We 
     believe caution is warranted before accepting NEPs as 
     uniformly beneficial in any setting.''
       The findings have sent supporters into a frenzy, with many 
     fretting about their impact on public funding. ``While it was 
     important that the study be published,'' Peter Lurie 
     complained to one magazine, ``whether that information 
     outweighs the political costs is another matter.'' In a 
     bizarre New York Times op-ed, Bruneau recently disavowed some 
     of her own conclusions. She said the results could be 
     explained by higher-risk behavior engaged in by program 
     users, a claim anticipated and rejected by her own report.
       And that objection lands NEP supporters on the horns of a 
     dilemma: Any control weaknesses in the Canadian reports are 
     also present in the pro-exchange studies. ``You can't have it 
     both ways,'' Kleber says. ``You can't explain away Montreal 
     and Vancouver without applying the same scientific measures 
     to the studies you feel are on your side.''
       Defending an expansion of the programs, AIDS policy czar 
     Thurman says, ``We need to let science drive the issue of 
     needle exchange.'' The best that can be said for the evidence 
     so far is that it doesn't tell us much. Without better-
     controlled studies, science cannot be hauled out as a witness 
     for either side of the debate.


                          death-defying logic

       Critics of needle exchanges are forced to admit there's a 
     certain logic to the concept, at least in theory: Give enough 
     clean needles to an IV drug user and he won't bum 
     contaminated ``spikes'' when he wants a fix.
       But ex-addicts themselves, and the medical specialists who 
     treat them, say it isn't that simple. ``People think that 
     everybody in shooting galleries worries about AIDS or 
     syphilis or crack-addicted babies. That's the least of 
     people's worries,'' says Jean Scott, the director of adult 
     programs at Phoenix House in Manhattan. ``While they're 
     using, all they can think about is continuing to use and 
     where they're going to get their next high.''
       Indeed, the NEP crowd mistakenly assumes that most addicts 
     worry about getting AIDS. Most probably don't: The psychology 
     and physiology of addiction usually do not allow them the 
     luxury. ``Once they start pumping their system with drugs, 
     judgment disappears. Memory disappears. Nutrition disappears. 
     The ability to evaluate their life needs disappears,'' says 
     Eric Voth, the chairman of the International Drug Strategy 
     Institute and one of the nation's leading addiction 
     specialists. ``What makes anybody think they'll make clean 
     needles a priority?''
       Ronn Constable, now a program director at Teen Challenge 
     International in New York, says his addiction consumed him 24 
     hours a day, seven days a week. Addicts call it ``chasing the 
     bag'': shooting up, feeling the high, and planning the next 
     hit before withdrawal. ``For severe addicts, that's all they 
     do,'' Constable says. ``Their whole life is just scheming to 
     get their next dollar to get their next bundle of dope.''
       Ernesto Margaro fed his heroin habit for seven years, at 
     times going through 40 bags--or $400--a day. He recalls 
     walking up to a notorious drug den in the Bedford-Stuyvestant 
     section of Brooklyn with a few of his friends. A man stumbled 
     out onto the sidewalk and collapsed. They figured he was 
     dying.

[[Page 18633]]

       Margaro opened a fire hydrant on him. ``When he finally 
     came to, the first thing we asked him was where he got that 
     dope from,'' he says. ``We needed to know, because if it made 
     him feel like that, we were going to take just a little bit 
     less than he did.''
       This is typical of the hard-core user: The newest, most 
     potent batch of heroin on the streets, the one causing the 
     most deaths, is in greatest demand. ``They run around trying 
     to find out who the dead person copped from,'' says Scott, a 
     drug-treatment specialist with 30 years' experience. ``The 
     more deaths you have, the more popular the heroin is. That's 
     the mentality of the addict.''


                          needle entrepreneurs

       Some younger addicts may at first be fearful of the AIDS 
     virus, though that concern probably melts away as they 
     continue to shoot up. But the hard-core abusers live in a 
     state of deep denial. ``I had them dying next to me,'' 
     Constable says. ``One of my closest buddies withered away. I 
     never thought about it.''
       Needle-exchange programs are doing brisk business all over 
     the country: San Diego, Seattle, Denver, Baltimore, Boston, 
     and beyond. San Francisco alone hands out 2.2 million needles 
     a year. If most addicts really aren't worried about HIV, then 
     why do they come?
       In most states, it is difficult to buy drug paraphernalia 
     without a prescription. That makes it hard, some claim, to 
     find syringes. But drug users can get them easily enough on 
     the streets. The main reason they go to NEPs, it seems, is 
     that the outlets are a free source of needles, cookers, 
     cotton, and bleach. They're also convenient. They are run 
     from storefronts or out of vans, and they operate several 
     days a week at regular hours.
       And they are hassle-free. Users are issued ID cards that 
     entitle them to carry drug paraphernalia wherever they go. 
     Police are asked to keep their distance lest they scare off 
     clients.
       Most programs require that users swap their old needles for 
     new equipment, but people aren't denied if they ``forget'' to 
     bring in the goods. And most are not rigid one-for-one 
     exchanges. Jose Castellar works an NEP van at the corner of 
     South Fifth Street and Marcy Avenue in Brooklyn. On a recent 
     Thursday afternoon, a man walked up and mechanically dropped 
     off 18 syringes in a lunch sack. Castellar recognized him as 
     a regular, and gave him back 28--standard procedure. ``It's 
     sort of like an incentive,'' he explains.
       It's the ``incentive'' part of the program that many 
     critics find so objectionable. An apparently common strategy 
     of NEP clients is to keep a handful of needles for themselves 
     and sell the rest. Says Margaro, ``They give you five 
     needles. That's $2 a needle, that's $10. That's your next 
     fix. That's all you're worried about.''
       It may also explain why many addicts who know they are HIV 
     positive--older users such as Walter--still visit NEPs. 
     Nobody knows how many there are, because no exchanges require 
     blood tests. In New York, health officials say that perhaps 
     half of the older IV addicts on the streets are infected.
       Defenders admit the system is probably being abused. ``An 
     addict is an addict. He's going to do what he needs to 
     maintain his habit,'' says Easterlins, who works a van for 
     ADAPT, one of New York City's largest needle-exchange 
     programs. Naomi Fatt, ADAPT's executive director, is a little 
     more coy. ``We don't knowingly participate'' in the black 
     market for drug paraphernalia, she says. And if NEP clients 
     are simply selling their syringes to other drug users? ``We 
     don't personally care how they get their sterile needles. If 
     that's the only way they can save their lives is to get these 
     needles on the streets, is that really so awful?''


                            name your poison

       In the debate over federal funding for NEPs, herein lies 
     their siren song: Clean needles save lives. But there just 
     isn't much evidence, scientific or otherwise, that free drug 
     paraphernalia is protecting users.
       The reason is drug addiction. Addicts attending NEPs 
     continue to swap needles and engage in risky sexual behavior. 
     All the studies that claim otherwise are based on self-
     reporting, an unreliable gauge.
       By not talking much about drug abuse, NEP activists 
     effectively sidestep the desperation created by addiction. 
     When drug users run out of money for their habit, for 
     example, they often turn to prostitution--no matter how many 
     clean needles are in the cupboard. And the most common way of 
     contracting HIV is, of course, sexual intercourse. ``Sex is a 
     currency in the drug world,'' says Horton of Phoenix House. 
     ``It is a major mode of HIV infection. And you don't address 
     that with needle exchange.''
       At least a third of the women in treatment at the Brooklyn 
     Teen Challenge had been lured into prostitution. About 15 
     percent of the female clients in Manhattan's Phoenix House 
     contracted HIV by exchanging sex for drugs. In trying to 
     explain the high HIV rates in Vancouver, researchers admitted 
     ``it may be that sexual transmission plays an important 
     role.''
       Kleber, a psychiatrist and a leading addiction specialist, 
     has been treating drug abusers for 30 years. He says NEPs, 
     even those that offer education and health services, aren't 
     likely to become beacons of behavior modification. 
     ``Addiction erodes your ability to change your behavior,'' he 
     says. ``And NEPs have no track record of changing risky 
     sexual behavior.''
       Or discouraging other reckless choices, for that matter. 
     James Curtis, the director of addiction services at the 
     Harlem Hospital Center, says addicts are not careful about 
     cleanliness and personal hygiene, so they often develop 
     serious infections, such as septicemia, around injection 
     areas. ``It is false, misleading, and unethical,'' he says, 
     ``to give addicts the idea that they can be intravenous drug 
     abusers without suffering serious self-injury.''
       A recent University of Pennsylvania study followed 415 IV 
     drug users in Philadelphia over four years. Twenty-eight died 
     during the study. Only five died from causes associated with 
     HIV. Most died for other reasons: overdoses, homicide, heart 
     disease, kidney failure, liver disease, and suicide. Writing 
     in the New England Journal of Medicine, medical professors 
     George Woody and David Metzger said that compared to the risk 
     of HIV infection, the threat of death to drug abusers from 
     other causes is ``more imminent.''
       That proved tragically correct for John Watters and Brian 
     Weil, two prominent founders of needle exchanges who died of 
     apparent heroin overdoses. Indeed, deaths from drug 
     dependence in cities with active needle programs have been on 
     an upward trajectory for years. In New York City hospitals, 
     the number has jumped from 413 in 1990 to 909 in 1996.


                            good and ready?

       Keeping drug users free of AIDS is a noble--but narrow--
     goal. Surely the best hope of keeping them alive is to get 
     them off drugs and into treatment. Research from the National 
     Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) shows that untreated opiate 
     addicts die at a rate seven to eight times higher than 
     similar patients in methadone-based treatment programs.
       Needle suppliers claim they introduce addicts to rehab 
     services, and Shalala wants local officials to include 
     treatment referral in any new needle-exchange programs. But 
     program staffers are not instructed to confront addicts about 
     their drug habit. The assumption: Unless drug abusers are 
     ready to quit on their own, it won't work.
       This explains why NEP advocates smoothly assert they 
     support drug treatment, yet gladly supply users with all the 
     drug-injection equipment they need. ``The idea that they will 
     choose on their own when they're ready is nonsense,'' says 
     Voth, who says he's treated perhaps 5,000 abusers of cocaine, 
     heroin, and crack. ``Judgment is one of the things that 
     disappears with addiction. The worst addicts are the ones 
     least likely to stumble into sobriety and treatment.''
       According to health officials, most addicts do not seek 
     treatment voluntarily, but enter through the criminal-justice 
     system. Even those who volunteer do so because of intense 
     pressure from spouses or employers or raw physical pain from 
     deteriorating health. In other words, they begin to confront 
     some of the unpleasant consequences of their drug habit.
       ``The only way a drug addict is going to consider stopping 
     is by experiencing pain,'' says Robert Dupont, a clinical 
     professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University Medical 
     School. ``Pain is what helps to break their delusion,'' says 
     David Batty, the director of Teen Challenge in Brooklyn. 
     ``The faster they realize they're on a dead-end street, the 
     faster they see the need to change.''


                          justice for junkies

       Better law enforcement, linked to drug courts and 
     alternative sentencing for offenders, could be the best way 
     to help them see the road signs up ahead. ``It is common for 
     an addict to say that jail saved his life,'' says Dr. Janet 
     Lapey, the president of Drug Watch International. ``Not until 
     the drugs are out of his system does he usually think clearly 
     enough to see the harm drugs are causing.''
       The key is to use the threat of jail time to prod offenders 
     into long-term treatment. More judges seem ready to do so, 
     and it's not hard to see why: In 1971, about 15 percent of 
     all crime in New York was connected to drug use, according to 
     law enforcement officials. Today it's about 85 percent.
       ``There has been an enormous increase in drug-related crime 
     because the only response of society has been a jail cell,'' 
     says Brooklyn district attorney Charles Hynes. ``But it is 
     morally and fiscally irresponsible to warehouse nonviolent 
     drug addicts.'' Since 1990, Hynes has helped reshape the 
     city's drug-court system to offer nonviolent addicts a 
     choice: two to four years in prison or a shot at 
     rehabilitation and job training.
       Many treatment specialists believe drug therapies will fail 
     unless they're backed up with punishment and other pressures. 
     Addicts need ``socially imposed consequences'' at the 
     earliest possible stage--and the simplest way is through the 
     criminal-justice system, says Dupont, a former director of 
     NIDA. Sally Satel, a psychiatrist specializing in addiction, 
     says ``coercion can be the clinician's best friend.''
       That may not be true of all addicts, but it took stiff 
     medicine to finally get the attention of Canzada Edmonds, a 
     heroin user for

[[Page 18634]]

     27 years. ``I was in love with heroin. I took it into the 
     bathroom, I took it into church,'' she says. ``I was living 
     in a fantasy. I was living in a world all to myself.''
       And she was living in Washington, D.C., which in the early 
     1990s had passed tougher sentencing laws for felony drug 
     offenders. After her third felony arrest, a district judge 
     said she faced a possible 30-year term in prison--or a trip 
     to a residential rehab program. Edmonds went to Teen 
     Challenge in New York in January 1995 and has been free of 
     drugs ever since.


                             reducing harm

       Needle-exchange advocates chafe at the thought of coercing 
     drug users into treatment. This signals perhaps their most 
     grievous omission: They refuse to challenge the self-
     absorption that nourishes drug addiction.
       In medical terms, it's called ``harm reduction''--accept 
     the irresponsible behavior and try to minimize its effects 
     with health services and education. Some needle exchanges, 
     for example, distribute guides to safer drug use. A pamphlet 
     from an NEP in Bridgeport, Connecticut, explains how to 
     prepare crack cocaine for injection (see box). It then urges 
     users to ``take care of your veins. Rotate injection sites. . 
     . .''
       ``Harm reduction is the policy manifestation of the 
     addict's personal wish,'' says Satel, ``which is to use drugs 
     without consequences.'' The concept is backed by numerous 
     medical and scientific groups, including the American Medical 
     Association, the American Public Health Association, and the 
     National Academy of Sciences.
       In legal terms, harm reduction means the decriminalization 
     of drug use. Legalization advocates, from financier George 
     Soros to the Drug Policy Foundation, are staunch needle-
     exchange supporters. San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, who 
     presides over perhaps the nation's busiest needle programs, 
     is a leading voice in the harm-reduction chorus. ``It is 
     time,'' he has written, ``to stop allowing moral or religious 
     tradition to define our approach to a medical emergency.''
       It is time, rather, to stop medicalizing what is 
     fundamentally a moral problem. Treatment communities that 
     stress abstinence, responsibility, and moral renewal, backed 
     up by tough law enforcement, are the best hope for addicts to 
     escape drugs and adopt safer, healthier lifestyles.
       Despite different approaches, therapeutic communities share 
     at least one goal: drug-free living. Though they commonly 
     regard addiction as a disease, they all insist that addicts 
     take full responsibility for their cure. Program directors 
     aren't afraid of confrontation, they push personal 
     responsibility, and they tackle the underlying causes of drug 
     abuse.
       The Clinton administration already knows these approaches 
     are working. NIDA recently completed a study of 10,010 drug 
     abusers who entered nearly 100 different treatment programs 
     in 11 cities. Researchers looked at daily drug use a year 
     before and a year-after treatment. Long-term residential 
     settings--those with stringent anti-drug policies--did best. 
     Heroin use dropped by 71 percent, cocaine use by 68 percent, 
     and illegal activity in general by 62 percent.
       NEP supporters are right to point out that these approaches 
     are often expensive and cannot reach most of the nation's 
     estimated 1.2 million IV drug users. Syringe exchanges, they 
     say, are a cost-effective alternative.
       NEPs may be cheaper to run, but they are no alternative, 
     they offer no remedy for the ravages of drug addiction. The 
     expense of long-term residential care surely cannot be 
     greater than the social and economic costs of failing to 
     liberate large populations from drug abuse.
       Phoenix House, with residential sites in New York, New 
     Jersey, California, and Texas, works with about 3,000 abusers 
     a day. It is becoming a crucial player in New York City's 
     drug courts, targeting roughly 500 adolescents and 1,400 
     adults. ``Coerced treatment works better than noncoerced,'' 
     says Anne Swern, a deputy district attorney in Brooklyn. 
     ``Judicially coerced residential treatment works best of 
     all.''
       Nonviolent drug felons are diverted into the program as 
     part of a parole agreement or as an alternative to prison. 
     They sign up for a tightly scripted routine of counseling, 
     education, and work, with rewards and sanctions to reinforce 
     good behavior. Though clients are not locked in at night, 
     police send out ``warrant teams'' to make regular visits.
       Prosecutors and judges like the approach because of its 
     relatively high retention rates. Sixty percent graduate from 
     the program, Swern says, compared to the 13 percent national 
     average for all drug programs. Graduates usually undergo 24 
     months of treatment and must find housing and employment. 
     Says Horton, ``The ability of a judge to tell an addict it's 
     Rikers Island or Phoenix House is a very effective tool.''
       Narcotics Anonymous (NA), like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), 
     is a community-based association of recovering addicts. Since 
     its formation in the 1950s, NA has stressed the therapeutic 
     value of addicts helping other addicts; its trademark is the 
     weekly group meeting, run out of homes, churches, and 
     community centers.
       ``You get the benefit of hearing how others stayed clean 
     today, with the things life gave them,'' says Tim, a 20-year 
     heroin user and NA member since 1995. NA offers no 
     professional therapists, no residential facilities, no 
     clinics. Yet its 12-step philosophy, adapted from AA, is 
     perhaps the most common treatment strategy in therapeutic 
     communities.
       The 12-step model includes admitting there is a problem, 
     agreeing to be open about one's life, and making amends where 
     harm has been done. The only requirement for NA membership is 
     a desire to stop using. ``Complete and continuous abstinence 
     provides the best foundation for recovery and personal 
     growth,'' according to NA literature.
       As in AA, members must admit they cannot end their 
     addiction on their own. The philosophy's second step is the 
     belief that ``a power greater than ourselves can restore us 
     to sanity.'' NA considers itself nonreligious, but urges 
     members to seek ``spiritual awakening''--however they choose 
     to define it--to help them stay clean.
       Teen Challenge, founded in 1958 by Pentecostal minister 
     David Wilkerson, is a pioneer in therapeutic communities and 
     has achieved some remarkable results in getting addicts off 
     drugs permanently. One federal study found that 86 percent of 
     the program's graduates were drug free seven years after 
     completing the regimen. On any given day, about 2,500 men and 
     women are in its 125 residential centers nationwide.
       The program uses an unapologetically Christian model of 
     education and counseling. Moral and spiritual problems are 
     assumed to lie at the root of drug addiction. Explains a 
     former addict, who was gang-raped when she was 13, ``I didn't 
     want to feel what I was feeling about the rape--the anger, 
     the hate--so I began to medicate. It was my way of coping.'' 
     Though acknowledging that the reasons for drug use are 
     complex, counselors make Christian conversion the linchpin of 
     recovery. Ronn Constable says he tried several rehab 
     programs, but failed to change his basic motivation until he 
     turned to faith in Christ. He has been steadily employed and 
     free of drugs for 11 years.
       ``Sin is the fuel behind addiction,'' Constable says, ``but 
     the Lord says he will not let me be tempted beyond what I can 
     bear.'' He is typical of former addicts at Teen Challenge, 
     who say their continued recovery hinges on their trust in God 
     and obedience to the Bible. Warns Edmonds, ``If you do not 
     make a decision to turn your will and your life completely 
     over to the power of God, then you're going to go right 
     back.'' Or as C.S. Lewis wrote in another context, ``The 
     hardness of God is kinder than the softness of man, and His 
     compulsion is our liberation.''


                            brave new world?

       Whether secular or religious, therapeutic communities all 
     emphasize the ``community'' part of their strategy. One 
     reason is that addicts must make a clean break not only from 
     their drug use, but from the circle of friends who help them 
     sustain it. That means a 24-hour-a-day regimen of counseling, 
     education, and employment, usually for 12 to 24 months, 
     safely removed from the culture of addiction.
       This is the antithesis of needle-exchange outlets, which 
     easily become magnets for drug users and dealers. Nancy 
     Sosman, a community activist in Manhattan, calls the Lower 
     East Side Harm Reduction Center and Needle Exchange Program 
     ``a social club for junkies.'' Even supporters such as 
     Bruneau warn that NEPs could instigate ``new socialization'' 
     and ``new sharing networks'' among otherwise isolated drug 
     users. Some, under the banner of AIDS education, hail this 
     function of the programs. Allan Clear, the executive director 
     of New York's Harm Reduction Coalition, told one magazine, 
     ``There needs to be a self-awareness of what an NEP supplies: 
     a meeting place where networks can form.''
       Meanwhile, activists decry a lack of drug paraphernalia for 
     eager clients. They call the decision to withhold federal 
     funding ``immoral.'' They want NEPs massively expanded, some 
     demanding no limits on distribution. Says one spokesman, 
     ``The one-to-one rule in needle exchange isn't at all 
     connected to reality.'' New York's ADAPT program gives out at 
     least 350,000 needles a year. ``But to meet the demand,'' 
     says Fatt, ``we'd need to give out a million a day.
       A million a day? Now that would be a Brave New World: 
     Intravenous drug users with lots of drugs, all the needles 
     they want, and police-free zones in which to network. Are we 
     really to believe this strategy will contain the AIDS virus?
       This is not compassion, it is ill-conceived policy. This is 
     not ``saving lives,'' but abandoning them--consigning 
     countless thousands to drug-induced death on the installment 
     plan. For when a culture winks at drug use, it gets a 
     population of Walters: ``Don't get the idea in you mind 
     you're going to control it.''

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, there is not anybody that I probably 
respect more than the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop. When I 
saw a copy of the letter that he sent our Speaker yesterday, I knew 
something was wrong. So I called him and I asked him about his letter.

[[Page 18635]]

  Mr. Chairman, I asked him the following four questions. I said, ``Dr. 
Koop, have you read these studies?'' What was the answer? No. ``Dr. 
Koop, do you think needle exchange programs, as presently designed in 
the United States, will work?'' The answer was no. ``Dr. Koop, why did 
you write the letter?'' The answer: ``Because in the areas in Europe 
where I have seen these programs work, where every needle is actually 
accounted for, there is some hope that they work.''

                              {time}  1145

  He then went on to offer the fact that he knew that in communities 
where there is some drug abuse, and he mentioned specifically Harlem, 
that a needle exchange program would never work because the culture of 
the addicts in our society is they will not account for the needle. 
They have no idea where they left them.
  So, as we consider his letter and his conversation with me, it falls 
prey to the same problems that we have seen on this debate, and that is 
the people who believe it is good have never read the studies.
  The science there undoubtedly shows that we have an increase in 
Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV. With every study that has been done 
thus far, if we account for those that are in the study at the 
beginning and at the end and because we want to help people, we are 
about to do something very, very wrong.
  I hope to be able to speak on the subject again.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following letter from C. 
Everett Koop:
         C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D., Surgeon General (Ret.), 
           U.S. Public Health Service,
                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 1999.
     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: Having worked on the HIV/AIDS epidemic 
     since its emergence in the U.S., I am now writing to express 
     my strong belief that local programs of clean needle exchange 
     can be an effective means of preventing the spread of the 
     disease without increasing the use of illicit drugs. While I 
     do not believe that clean needle programs are a panacea for 
     all settings, it is clear from careful and well-documented 
     public health studies that such programs have worked in many 
     areas and have great potential for making further reductions 
     in the incidence of new infections.
       Consequently, it would be counterproductive for the 
     Congress to enact a Federal measure that would limit the 
     ability of local and State public health agencies and 
     voluntary organizations to carry out needle exchange 
     programs. Such action by the Congress would undoubtedly 
     result in HIV infections that could have been prevented and 
     would unnecessarily enlarge and prolong the epidemic. If 
     local authorities or organizations determine that needle 
     exchange programs are appropriate to the epidemic as it 
     affects their communities, the Congress should allow them to 
     use all possible measures and funding sources to stem the 
     spread of this deadly disease.
       I urge you to oppose any effort to limit the public health 
     response to the AIDS epidemic.
           Sincerely,
                                      C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D.

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate by 10 
minutes on each side. I believe that the proponent of the amendment 
will find that agreeable.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, some studies have been cited by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Coburn).
  We have a response from General McCaffrey. General McCaffrey does 
make it clear that he supports the language that is in this bill. The 
language in this bill was put in in full committee by a vote of 32-23, 
a bipartisan vote, to say no Federal funds can be used for free needle 
exchange programs.
  All we are asking, Mr. Chairman, is that this body agree to that 
restriction. We ask for two reasons. The principal reason is that that 
is our only jurisdiction, the use of Federal funds, for which we are 
responsible.
  The second is that we will show very compelling evidence that the 
District of Columbia knew what it was doing when it started up a 
program which is one of the most effective in the country.
  Now, General McCaffrey supports the language in this bill. But he 
also makes it clear that he has never supported a prohibition on local 
jurisdictions' efforts to implement a needle exchange program.
  There are 113 local needle exchange programs in this country. They 
are working with various levels of success, but all of them successful. 
In fact, in the District of Columbia, two-thirds of the people that had 
been exposed to HIV through dirty needles are no longer being exposed 
as a result of the effectiveness of the program in the District of 
Columbia.
  Here we have a few hundred pages. They are not numbered. But these 
are the summaries of dozens of exhaustive studies by all of the 
organizations that we would want to look into this issue. They have all 
concluded that the needle exchange program works. They run the gamut 
from the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control, 
the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Association 
of Mental Health and Substance Abuse.
  This program is endorsed by the American Medical Association, any 
number of organizations that are prestigious and credible.
  Mr. Chairman, when I realized that I was going to have to debate the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) on this issue and take the position 
in favor of needle exchange programs, I groaned. I did not want to do 
this. Because on the face of it, my initial reaction was, my gosh, why 
would we ever give free needles to drug addicts?
  Well, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the facts are compelling. The 
District of Columbia knew exactly what it was doing when it started 
this program. Let me share with my colleagues some of these facts.
  The District of Columbia has an HIV-AIDS epidemic, one of the worst 
in the country. They have the highest rate of new HIV infections of any 
jurisdiction in the entire country, the worst.
  Intravenous drug use is the second leading cause of HIV transmission/
AIDS. That is what we are talking about basically. It accounts for more 
than a quarter of all the new infections. Deaths attributed to AIDS 
from HIV transmission in D.C. is more than seven times the national 
average.
  Listen to this please, my colleagues: AIDS is the leading cause of 
death for all city residents between the ages of 30 and 44, the leading 
cause of death. African-Americans are the hardest hit by intravenous 
transmission from dirty needles of the HIV virus. Ninety-six percent of 
those infected with HIV as a result of intravenous drug use in the 
District of Columbia are African-Americans.
  Women and children are also disproportionately affected. Drug use is 
the highest mode of transmission of HIV for women in D.C. Women are 
getting AIDS at the fastest rate. This is the most serious aspect of 
the AIDS epidemic in D.C., which is the worst in the country. And the 
principal way they get AIDS is through dirty needles.
  Seventy-five percent of the babies born with HIV, and what could be 
more disturbing to us, what could break our hearts worse than to have a 
baby born with AIDS, 75 percent of the babies born with HIV are 
infected as a result of dirty needles.
  The District of Columbia, my colleagues, has the worst problem with 
HIV transmission from dirty needles, the worst in the country. And yet 
it is the only jurisdiction in the entire country that is prohibited 
from implementing this program.
  113 other jurisdictions throughout the country have this program. All 
of the experts say it is effective. D.C. has the worst problem but, 
because of this Congress, they cannot use the one program that has been 
proven to be effective. That is why we oppose this amendment.
  We are not even suggesting that we use Federal funds. All we are 
asking is

[[Page 18636]]

we stick with the language that says no Federal funds can be used for a 
needle exchange program.
  But gosh, please let the residents of the District of Columbia and 
particularly its elected leaders, elected directly by the citizens of 
the District of Columbia, let them be able to use their local funds and 
let private donations be used for this program. It is a small program. 
It is very inexpensive. It is run by the Whitman-Walker Clinic, a very 
credible organization. They do wonderful work.
  The reason why these programs are so effective is because, when 
people come in to get free needles, they then have to get registered, 
that way we know who are the drug addicts. They then go into 
counseling. They then go into treatment. They will be exposed to the 
whole gamut of programs designed to treat their drug addiction and to 
make them healthy and to protect their babies.
  This is the gateway; this is the way we get access to people who 
desperately need help. To prevent the District of Columbia from using 
this gateway to cure people, to get them off their addiction, to save 
these babies, we need this program.
  Again, let me just remind my colleagues, we are not even asking for 
Federal funds. We are asking them to support language that says no 
Federal funds can be used for this program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the Members that under current law 
there is a program that does distribute needles here in the District of 
Columbia. It is called ``Prevention Works.''
  There is nothing in current law that I am trying to preserve that 
would prevent that from continuing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) that will reaffirm the 
Federal Government's commitment to the war on drugs by prohibiting 
Federal and District funds from being used to conduct needle exchange 
programs. These programs are harmful to communities and undermines our 
Nation's drug control efforts.
  Drug abuse continues to ravage our community, our schools, and our 
children. Heroin use is again on the rise. Thousands of children will 
inject hard-core drugs, like heroin and cocaine, for the first time 
this year and many will die.
  To deal with this problem, we must have a firm commitment by the 
Federal Government to end the cycle of addiction and abuse that 
destroys so many lives.
  Providing free hypodermic needles to addicts so they can continue to 
inject illegal drugs sends a terrible message to our children that 
Congress has given up on the fight to stop illegal drug use and that 
the Federal Government implicitly condones this illegal activity.
  As lawmakers, we have a responsibility to rise up and fight against 
the use and spread of drugs everywhere we can. We should start by 
making it harder, not easier, to practice this deadly habit. We should 
not tell our children do not do drugs, on the one hand, while giving 
them free needles to shoot up with in the other.
  We need a national drug control policy which emphasizes education, 
interdiction, prevention, and treatment, not subsidies for addicts.
  The results of community-based needle exchange programs have been 
disastrous. Needle exchange programs result in towns with higher crime, 
schools that are littered with used drugs, paraphernalia, and 
neighborhoods that are magnets for drug addicts and the high-risk 
behavior that accompany them.
  The medical evidence behind these dangerous programs is inconclusive 
at best. Studies have shown that addicts who use needle exchange 
programs are more likely to contract HIV or other blood-borne viruses.
  A recent study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology 
concluded that there was no indication that needle exchanges protected 
against blood-borne infections. In fact, the study concluded ``there 
was no indication of a protective effect of syringe exchange against 
HBV or HCV infection. Indeed, highest incidence of infection occurred 
among current users of the exchange, even after adjusting for 
confounding variables.''
  Here in the District of Columbia, the problem persists. It has been 
noted that the District of Columbia has the highest incidence of new 
HIV infection in the country, and yet we have had needle exchange 
programs here for 7 years.
  It is time to halt any government support of this. Support the Tiahrt 
amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) the only Member 
of this body who is elected by the citizens of the District of 
Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the most inflammatory and heartless of the 
harshly anti-Democratic amendments before us today. It says ``drop 
dead'' to the people I represent.
  I oppose this amendment because it is outrageously discriminatory to 
pick out one jurisdiction in the United States that may not use its own 
funds to save the lives of its own people.
  We have seen an attempt to take back the words of Dr. C. Everett 
Koop. Nothing can take back what he said. He expresses his ``strong 
belief that local programs of clean needle exchange can be an effective 
means of preventing the spread of the disease.'' And he says that if 
local authorities and organizations determine it is appropriate, 
``Congress should allow them to use all possible measures.''
  My police chief, Charles Ramsey, said that ``the program is 
necessitated by the need to effectively combat the spread of HIV-
AIDS.'' He says, ``it is well-managed and has an exemplary return 
rate.''
  He says, ``I have received no reports which indicate that the program 
has been abused in any way or has created serious public safety 
problems in the District.''

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, AIDS is out of control in my district, especially in the 
African American community. The program is privately run by the 
Whitman-Walker Clinic. It is nationally recognized.
  A vote for the Tiahrt amendment assures a veto of the entire 
appropriation. I ask Members to defeat this amendment and rescue not 
only my appropriation but the potential survivors of the AIDS epidemic 
in the District.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the body that the 
President did sign the current law. That is what we are trying to 
achieve here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for his 
lead on this amendment. It is just hard for me to understand what kind 
of debate we are having here. This would be, I am trying to think of 
equivalents, of trying to battle cigarettes by giving kids free low-tar 
cigarettes; or trying to battle breast cancer by giving people things 
that cause heart disease.
  Perhaps a better example would be to say that we are really worried 
about some kind of material, theoretically, let us say asbestos that is 
in the cigarette package, so we are going to give kids packages of 
cigarettes to smoke while we are going to make sure that the packaging 
does not damage them.
  The fact is that heroin is a terrible scourge not only to the 
individual but to the communities involved. To argue that by 
facilitating this habit by giving them clean needles to fight another 
disease is absurd on the face of it. The fact is that studies, quite 
frankly, have been done more methodologically correct, such as the 
Montreal and the Vancouver studies, whereas other statistical studies 
have been assessed by

[[Page 18637]]

the Statistical Assessment Service as not meeting those standards.
  I would point out, for example, Montreal: ``We have yet to hear a 
cogent argument that would allay our concerns that needle exchange 
programs may facilitate the formation of new sharing groups gathering 
isolated IDUs, a scenario that is consistent with our findings.''
  Vancouver now has the highest heroin death rate in North America and 
is referred to as Canada's ``drugs and crime capital,'' from the 
Washington Post in the spring of 1997.
  UPI had a story last July 29, ``Chief: Vancouver Has Lost Drug War.'' 
British Columbia's police chief claims the city has lost the war on 
drugs and now the city is proposing to give heroin addicts free heroin 
in addition to the free needles.
  The ONDCP's visit, some of the observations on facts are, for 
example, that the Vancouver needle exchange program is one of the 
largest in the world. It has distributed over 1 million needles 
annually.
  B. HIV rates among participants in the needle exchange program are 
higher than the HIV rate among drug users who do not participate. So in 
the same heroin drug users, it is higher if you participate in the 
clean needles program in the Vancouver, which is a statistically 
accurate study, not a random sample picked up to justify something.
  The death rate due to illegal drugs in Vancouver has skyrocketed 
since the needle exchange program was introduced. In 1988, 18 deaths 
were attributed to drugs; in 1993, 200 were attributed to drugs. The 
very thing that this program is supposed to be helping is accelerating 
and fixing one disease by enabling and expanding another disease and it 
is absurd.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the ONDCP Vancouver Needle Exchange Trip 
Report for the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of National 
           Drug Control Policy,
                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 1998.


information--memorandum for the director through: the deputy director; 
                    from: strategy (D.B. Des roches)

                 Vancouver Needle Exchange Trip Report

       1. Purpose: To provide you with field observations on 
     needle exchange and drug abuse in Vancouver, Canada.
       2. General; You had directed that Dr. Adger and I visit the 
     Vancouver Needle Exchange in light of the high incidence of 
     HIV among needle exchange participants and the skyrocketing 
     death rate due to drug overdose in Vancouver. Jane Sanville 
     of ODR joined the trip because of her expertise in the field 
     of AIDS. We spoke with law enforcement and public health 
     officials, as well as with the scientists who studied the 
     needle exchange and those who run the needle exchange. (Trip 
     Schedule at TAB 1). Our visit to the U.S. Customs and Border 
     Patrol at Blaine raised separate issues, which will be 
     reported under separate cover.
       3. Observations--Facts:
       A. The Vancouver Needle Exchange Program (NEP) is one of 
     the largest in the world--it has distributed over 1 million 
     needles annually for the last ten years, and close to 2.5 
     million needles last year alone.
       B. The HIV rates among participants in the NEP is higher 
     than the HIV rate among injecting drug users who do not 
     participate.
       C. The death rate due to illegal drugs in Vancouver has 
     skyrocketed since 1988, the year needle exchange was 
     introduced. In 1988, 18 deaths were attributed to drugs; in 
     1993 200 deaths were attributed to drugs. The Provincial 
     Coroner told us that in March they were averaging more than 
     10 deaths due to drugs per week, and were on pace for 600 
     deaths province-wide in 1998--mostly in Vancouver.
       D. With the implementation of NAFTA, the Vancouver Port 
     Police was disbanded. Vancouver is the most active Pacific 
     port in North America.
       E. The highest rates of property crime in Vancouver are 
     within two blocks of the needle exchange (See maps, TAB 2).
       4. Observations--Statements:
       A. The single most striking point, which all interviewees 
     stressed, was the lack of adequate drug treatment capacity in 
     British Columbia. The head of the Vancouver-Richmond Health 
     Board stated: ``I can have all the needles I want, but they 
     won't give me a single drug treatment bed.'' Other health 
     care professionals noted the fact that governmental 
     responsibility for drug treatment has been shuffled among 
     various ministries, and has never been a priority.
       B. Every interviewee stated that the most abused injection 
     drug in Vancouver is cocaine. This was cited repeatedly as a 
     major reason for the failure of needle exchange to prevent 
     HIV: cocaine abusers typically inject much more frequently 
     than do heroin abusers.
       C. Every interviewee cited the geographic features of the 
     Downtown/Eastside (the major drug abuse area and the location 
     of the needle exchange) as an exacerbating factor. Bounded by 
     railyards and docks on two sides, it is an isolated and 
     distinct area that contains most of the serious injection 
     drug abuse and the drug trade, as well as associated 
     prostitution and property crime. The area has a large number 
     of single residence occupancy hotels, which all said 
     contributed to the ``massing effect'' of addicts.
       D. Every interviewee said that the average age of IV drug 
     users has decreased in recent years.
       E. Every interviewee save the Coroner pointed to the lack 
     of turnstiles on the skytrain (elevated light rail system) as 
     an aggravating factor, as it increased ingress for the 
     destitute to the Downtown/Eastside area from other parts of 
     the city.
       F. The Vancouver Police interviewees stated that they had 
     been called by other interviewees and asked what they were 
     going to say.
       G. The Director of the NEP stated that ``it is ridiculous 
     to propose that we hand out 10 million needles a year.'' 10 
     million is the number he estimated would be required to 
     accommodate the injecting cocaine users in Vancouver with one 
     needle per injection.
       H. Every interviewee stated that the primary reasons for 
     the increase in drug abuse was the available supply of cheap 
     drugs, and that the needle exchange had either no effect or a 
     marginal effect on overall drug abuse.
       I. The Vancouver police stated that there are inadequate 
     drug treatment beds in the criminal justice system. Court 
     mandated treatment is not a reality.
       J. The Vancouver police stated that there was a 24 hour 
     drug market and similar open drug injection activity in the 
     area immediately adjacent to the needle exchange. During a 
     drive-around with a detective from the Vancouver Drug Squad, 
     we observed multiple instances of drug users injecting and 
     purchasing drugs. A one block long alley typically had three 
     or four people injecting, preparing to inject or moving from 
     injecting drugs. While walking around the area, we frequently 
     encountered discarded syringe wrappers and protective tips.
       4. Observations--Reporter Notes:
       A. Everyone save the police clearly wanted needle exchange 
     to be a success (the police seemed to feel it was a 
     facilitator for drug use, but officially supported it), and 
     felt that the failure of needle exchange to stop the spread 
     of HIV was due to three factors:
       (1) The NEP was set up for heroin users: the prevalence of 
     cocaine injection (which is much more frequent) meant that 
     the NEP would be inadequate.
       (2) Vancouver suffers from a ``nutbowl effect''--the 
     homeless, migrants, counterculture types and disaffected, at-
     risk personalities tend to migrate there from around the 
     country. Everyone pointed to social policies in other 
     Canadian provinces, especially Alberta, which encouraged 
     socially marginal people to move to British Colombia (by 
     providing bus tickets).
       (3) Vancouver was on the trailing edge of the AIDS 
     epidemic: some stated that the NEP was founded just as AIDS 
     began to surge. It was frequently asserted that ``it would 
     have been much worse without NEP.'' (Note--it might be 
     interesting to evaluate other NEPs in this light--generally, 
     NEPs in America were established on the trailing edge of the 
     epidemic. Any claimed reduction in HIV incidence might be 
     attributable to the normal course of the disease).
       B. All the ONDCP participants were amazed at the lack of 
     treatment capacity in Vancouver. When we asked interviewees 
     about this, they too were outspoken about inadequate 
     treatment. Apparently, there is a requirement for addicts to 
     abstain for three months prior to entering one of the few 
     treatment spaces. Catch 22 is not just an American invention.
       C. The academics who studied the NEP seemed extremely 
     concerned by the increase in HIV among NEP participants, and 
     devoted much of our time together to explaining how NEP 
     frequent users were a much more marginalized and at-risk 
     segment of society than were infrequent NEP users. When asked 
     if there were any studies comparing NEP users and non-NEP 
     users, the study director responded that they had no way to 
     interview non-NEP users.
       D. Property crime of all sorts in Vancouver seems to be 
     highest in the areas around the NEP building. This is sort of 
     a chicken-egg thing: it's hard to gauge cause and effect.
       E. Public support for needle exchange seemed to exist, but 
     only so long as the NEP was confined to Downtown-Eastside. 
     Expansion of the NEP (by vans) was opposed at a public 
     meeting on the day of our departure.
       F. All interviewees save the police referred to the NEP's 
     efforts to maintain relations with the community, and their 
     efforts to keep discarded needles away from schools, etc. 
     However, in a private interview, an elementary schoolteacher 
     said that children at area schools are not allowed outside at 
     recess for fear of needles. I was unable to verify this 
     statement.
       5. Conclusions:
       A. There has been a trade-off between needle exchange and 
     drug treatment. This is the single most important lesson 
     learned in Vancouver. The trade-off was not explicit, and

[[Page 18638]]

     was probably not deliberate. It may have resulted from normal 
     bureaucratic politics, or the shuffling of responsibilities 
     among ministries. Nevertheless, it has evolved and is allowed 
     to persist.
       (1) Absent any mandate for drug treatment, NEPs will focus 
     on what they can afford and do best--exchange needles.
       (2) Once the NEP was instituted, there seemed to be no 
     imperative for the establishment or expansion of drug 
     treatment. All interviewees stated that NEP was not a 
     ``silver bullet,'' but reality suggests that it is treated as 
     such.
       B. In the absence of treatment, the potential benefits of 
     needle exchange programs are marginalized for the most at-
     risk. The single most common explanation given for the 
     prevalence of HIV among NEP participants was that the NEP 
     participants were at a greater risk than non-NEP 
     participants. Harm reduction believes that by giving addicts 
     the means and knowledge to safely use drugs (i.e. needles), 
     most of the negative effects of drug abuse can be alleviated. 
     Yet this approach still requires that the addict responsibly 
     use the needles he is given; the HIV statistics show that he 
     does not. For an at-risk population paternal approaches 
     which--as a last resort--can supplant irresponsible behavior 
     will probably be more effective. With an at-risk population, 
     without access to drug treatment, needle exchange appears to 
     be nothing more than a facilitator for drug abuse.
       C. High-purity cocaine and heroin is becoming increasingly 
     prevalent and will pose challenges across the board. 
     Vancouver is literally swamped with drugs. Large seizures 
     appear to have no effect at the street level. This influx of 
     high-purity heroin and cocaine is a major cause of both the 
     high HIV rates in Vancouver as well as the high death rate. 
     We should examine high-purity drugs as a separate threat, and 
     consider a national initiative along the lines of our 
     methamphetamine initiative.

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) who represents the immediate suburb 
of Washington D.C., Prince Georges County.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It is both 
arrogant and misguided. It is arrogant because it attempts to impose 
the will of this Congress on citizens of the District of Columbia. The 
gentleman is from Kansas and I submit that we would never attempt to 
impose the will of this Congress on the citizens of Kansas and the 
citizens of Wichita, Kansas. We would let them spend their money the 
way they want to.
  This amendment would say that the citizens of the District of 
Columbia could not spend local money the way they want to. The District 
of Columbia has experience with this issue. In fact, through the 
Whitman-Walker Clinic and using local funds, they implemented a program 
and the program was successful. It reduced needle sharing by two-
thirds.
  Mr. Chairman, that is the issue, needle sharing. Where we reduce 
needle sharing, we reduce the transmission of AIDS.
  Now, who says this approach works? Well, the National Institute of 
Health says this approach works. The Center for Disease Control says 
this approach works. The American Medical Association says needle 
sharing works. The National Academy of Sciences says needle sharing 
works. The body of scientific evidence in America suggests this is a 
proper approach.
  Let us not be arrogant and misguided. Let us oppose this amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Kansas for yielding me this time and rise in strong 
support of this amendment.
  Let me get this straight, if I just heard the previous speaker 
criticize the Congress for trying to set some standards against the 
provision of needles with which the people of the District of Columbia 
inject deadly substances into their veins based on the argument that 
the Congress would never tell the people of Kansas what it can or 
cannot do.
  I would remind the gentleman that there are all sorts of, thousands 
upon thousands upon thousands of Federal regulatory mandates that tell 
the people of Kansas precisely what they can and cannot do. For 
heaven's sake, it is this Congress that just a few years ago told the 
people of Kansas what size toilets they can build and what size toilets 
they can use and where they can build homes and where they can build 
roads.
  Very frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would much rather see the Congress of 
this United States step in and save lives by telling people, no, we are 
not going to furnish you and make it easier for you to inject deadly 
mind-altering substances into your veins than it would be for the 
Congress to continue to tell people what they might do productively 
with their lives.
  I would also remind our colleagues of a very basic principle. If you 
give people the means to do something and encourage them to do it, 
well, for heaven's sake, no surprise, they will do it.
  Now, I know people on the other side, the gentlemen from Maryland, 
both of them, who will be speaking on this speak very eloquently, very 
passionately and very sincerely about helping people in their 
community. But I would simply say that we think on this side that there 
is a better way of addressing the problem of drug use in our 
communities, wherever those communities might be, in the Seventh 
District of Georgia or the Third District of Maryland or wherever, than 
to give people the means to continue to inject mind-altering, dangerous 
substances into their veins.
  I think this is a very appropriate and limited exercise, the will of 
the people of this country, that at least in our Nation's capital, 
subject in large part to the jurisdiction as the Nation's capital to 
the will of the American people through their representatives in the 
Congress that we tell the people of D.C., ``We do want to help people, 
but we are not going to do it by furnishing you the means to inject 
mind-altering substances into your veins.''
  I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I trust that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is 
aware that Georgia has a needle exchange program and we do not tell 
Georgia that they cannot have a needle exchange program, nor do we tell 
any of the other 113 cities around the country except for the District 
of Columbia that they cannot have such a needle exchange program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment 
which would prohibit the use of local funds for the City's needle 
exchange program which prevents new HIV infections in injection drug 
users and their partners.
  I want to point out, also, this amendment had been rejected by the 
Committee on Appropriations. Trying to micromanage D.C. would be 
counterproductive for the Congress and it encroaches on the legitimate 
roles of the City Council and the Control Board. We in Congress have 
worked hard to give back local control to our communities, and these 
provisions would run contrary to that objective.
  As has been mentioned, the District of Columbia has one of the 
highest HIV infection rates in the country. Intravenous drug use is the 
District's second highest mode of transmission and it accounts for over 
37 percent of all new AIDS cases. Incidentally, AIDS is the third 
leading cause of death of all people in the District of Columbia. And 
for women, where the rate of infection is growing faster than among 
men, it is the highest mode of transmission.
  Scientific evidence supports the fact that needle exchange programs 
reduce HIV infection and do not contribute to illegal drug use. And 
since Johns Hopkins from Maryland had been mentioned earlier, I have an 
article from the newspaper which says:

       Maryland's only needle exchange program neither promotes 
     crime nor encourages children to take up drugs as critics 
     fear, two Johns Hopkins researchers said.
       The Nation's scientific community is united in ruling that 
     giving clean needles to HIV-infected addicts is good public 
     health policy.

  AMA, ABA, the pediatrics, the Mayors, Dr. Koop has been mentioned. 
Let us let public health experts make those decisions and vote against 
the amendment.

[[Page 18639]]


  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this issue say that 
everybody is united in the scientific world. That is just absolutely 
not true. It may be their opinion but it is not fact.
  Secondly, have any of my colleagues ever gone on drug ride-alongs? 
You go through these houses. You would not walk in there with combat 
boots. There is trash, there are needles all over the place. In several 
of these I found mattresses where the prostitutes are asking for sex 
for drugs, and in one I even found a teddy bear where the prostitute 
had their child. The child is playing around all of these needles.
  The San Diego police then took me into a park and said, ``Duke, look 
at all the needles in this park.'' Would you want your child around 
where they dump these needles? These addicts are not responsible 
people. They are going to take these extra needles, they are going to 
put them anywhere they want.
  We walked down the street. They are in the gutter. They are in the 
park. How would you like your child to walk along and stub one of those 
needles in their boot or in their sandal or in their foot? I think you 
would panic automatically on these things.
  It is not a good thing, needle exchange, and it is actually a 
negative effect.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I would remind my friend from California that there are 19 
such needle exchange programs in California, but also, most 
importantly, this is a needle exchange program. There are no extra 
needles as the gentleman referred to. You do not get a clean needle 
unless you give up a dirty needle. That is what this is all about, 
trying to get rid of these dirty needles.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Baltimore, MD 
(Mr. Cummings) that has a particularly effective needle exchange 
program.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  A lot has been said about the Baltimore program, but the fact still 
remains that the Baltimore program lowers the rate of crime. In those 
areas where needle exchange takes place, it has lowered the crime rate. 
Second, it lowers the rate of the spread of AIDS. It has been very, 
very clear and it has been studied by Johns Hopkins Hospital and 
University, the number one university and hospital in the country.
  Number three, it has reduced the use of drugs. I live in a drug-
infested neighborhood. The argument that was just made does not even 
make sense. The fact is that in the areas where needle exchange takes 
place, they have discovered that there are less needles on the streets 
so that people can stub their toes and whatever.
  This is a very, very, very bad amendment. We sat here last year and I 
talked about people dying. The fact is that many have died because we 
did not do the right thing last year, and now we have an opportunity to 
save some more lives. This is our opportunity. And so it is.
  I beg the House to vote against this Tiahrt amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the Members that nine out of 
10 injection drug users in Baltimore are infected with hepatitis C. It 
is not a successful program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tiahrt 
amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill. This amendment will prohibit 
Federal and District funds from being spent on any program to 
distribute hypodermic needles for the purpose of illegal drug 
injection.
  When we had this debate several years ago, I did take the time to 
read the bulk of the studies on this issue. The studies in my opinion 
in no way make it clear that these programs work. There are studies 
that show that these programs are actually bad. Each side can pull out 
the respective studies and quote from their studies to make these kinds 
of assertions.
  The District of Columbia is not some hamlet in Maryland that we are 
talking about. We are talking about the capital of the United States of 
America. I consider this town to be as much the possession of every 
person in the United States as it is the people who live here year 
round, and I believe it is very, very appropriate for us to set some 
standards.
  This is a good amendment. The needle exchange programs, I believe, 
encourage the use and they send a very, very bad signal to our youth. 
There are studies that show obviously it plays a role in the passage of 
infectious diseases.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
in support of the Tiahrt amendment.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  The Johns Hopkins University just concluded a study in which they 
found that neighborhoods in Baltimore with needle exchange programs had 
a drop in economically-motivated crimes even though those same 
categories of crime rose over the same 4-year period. That needle 
exchange program did not significantly increase the willingness of 
teens to use drugs and the communities with needle exchange programs 
did not experience any increase in the number of discarded drug vials 
and needles found in the streets.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) who is a 
physician, a family practitioner, throughout her career.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that 
needle exchange sends a negative message, but needle exchange sends a 
good message that we will implement and support policies that save 
lives.
  Our colleagues who support that amendment use the statistics and 
deliberately twist them to support a position that flies in the face of 
overwhelming scientific evidence and is contrary to public health 
policy. The needle exchange programs take place in communities where 
there is high drug use, so of course the statistics show high drug use. 
But they have been proven over and over again, that drug use is reduced 
in those communities where needle exchange programs exist.
  Yes, I am a physician. I know from experience what HIV can do to end 
lives that have otherwise gotten back on track and are productive after 
leaving drugs behind. What we are doing here does not even give people, 
good people who have had the illness of drug addiction, a chance.
  But do not take my word for it. My colleagues have heard of all of 
the other organizations that support needle exchange, and take what Dr. 
Koop says, that it can save lives and reduce drug abuse.
  This is a terrible amendment. It jeopardizes the District's effort to 
address what is a serious epidemic here. Let us not write off lives, 
let us save them.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health reported, 
9 out of 10 needle-using addicts have a blood-borne virus. They have 
had a program there for 5 years, and it has been very unsuccessful.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). If all else fails, look to 
the evidence in a place where such a policy has already been attempted. 
Let us look at the Vancouver experiment.
  The Vancouver needle exchange program is one of the largest in the 
world, distributing 2\1/2\ million needles in the last year alone. 
Well, instead of decreasing the rate of HIV and AIDS in Vancouver, the 
HIV rate among needle

[[Page 18640]]

exchange participants is even higher than the rate among injecting drug 
users who do not participate. How can that be called successful? And we 
want to emulate that here?
  The death rate due to illegal drugs in Vancouver has also skyrocketed 
since the program began, and the highest rates of poverty crime in 
Vancouver are within two blocks of the needle exchange.
  At the very least, the available scientific studies in no way 
conclude that a program which enables drug users can simultaneously 
seek to end their destructive habit and help them to stop shooting up. 
In fact, it looks as though the opposite is true.
  In the words of the drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, we owe our children, 
and that includes the children of D.C., an unambiguous no-use message, 
end quote. We must offer users a way out, not another crutch. In our 
Nation's capital, Washington, D.C., let us not send a mixed message to 
our Nation's youth for illegal drug use.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, other speakers have indicated that the 
underlying bill already bars the use of Federal funds for needle 
exchange programs in the District of Columbia, but the gentleman is not 
satisfied with that restriction. He wants to prohibit the people of the 
District from using their own money for this purpose, money obtained 
through local taxation that is widely supported by citizens of the 
District, programs that have proven to be effective, according to the 
National Institutes for Health, the Centers For Disease Control and 
practically every respected public health agency in America, programs, 
by the way, that are saving millions of taxpayers' dollars in health 
care costs.
  The overwhelming evidence is that they prevent HIV infection, that 
they do not encourage or increase drug abuse, that they actually help 
reduce drug abuse by encouraging injection drug users to enter 
treatment.
  It is bad enough for legislators to overrule local decision makers in 
matters of this kind, but it is the worst kind of irresponsibility for 
us to substitute our own uninformed opinions for the sound judgment of 
the public health community to say in effect we have already made up 
our minds, do not confuse us with the facts. Let us save some lives and 
vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman 
from Kansas.
  The bill before us already bars the use of Federal funds for needle 
exchange programs in the District of Columbia. But the gentleman is not 
satisfied with this restriction. He wants to prohibit the people of the 
District from using their own money for this purpose--money obtained 
through local taxation for programs that are widely supported by the 
local citizenry.
  This is unfair to DC residents, who find themselves subject to the 
whims of representatives whom they did not elect.
  But it is also a terrible precedent for the country as a whole. 
Because despite the squeamishness of some Members of Congress at the 
mere sight of a needle, the truth is that these programs work. They 
prevent HIV infection. They do not encourage or increase drug abuse. In 
fact, there is overwhelming evidence that they actually help reduce 
drug abuse by encouraging injection drug abusers to enter treatment.
  As a former prosecutor and a member of the Judiciary Committee, I 
take very seriously the epidemic of drug addiction in our society. But 
we cannot make responsible public policy based on fear and ignorance.
  It is bad enough for legislators to overrule local decision makers in 
matters of this kind. But it is the worst kind of irresponsibility for 
us to substitute our own uninformed opinions for the sound judgment of 
the public health community. To say, in effect, ``our minds are made 
up. Don't confuse us with facts.''
  I have seen what needle exchange programs have accomplished in 
Massachusetts, Mr. Chairman, and I know that they have saved lives.
  If this amendment becomes law, more people in Washington, DC will 
become infected with the AIDS virus. More people will die of it. And 
their blood will be on our hands, Mr. Chairman.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman from Massachusetts 
that there is currently a needle exchange program in the District of 
Columbia. It is funded by private dollars. Nothing within this 
amendment stops that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, what are the goals we have? To save lives, 
to reduce crime, to reduce illegal drug usage which helps to reduce the 
great amount of crime that is associated with it.
  It is a real problem which this bill does great things to correct, 
and I want to make sure that Members and the public are aware of what 
this bill does without resorting to needle exchange with public money. 
And the question has been properly asked, why should we say not only 
the Federal funds, but local funds also should not be used for needle 
exchange program if they are taxpayer dollars?
  The amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) that we are 
voting on offers the identical language that was approved last year by 
the House, approved by the Senate, and signed into law by the 
President. I want to make sure that people know that we already have in 
this bill a new initiative, a huge assault against illegal drug usage 
and the problems it causes in the District.
  The District funds drug treatment programs right now that are 
overcrowded because more than anything else there are so many people 
who are convicted felons convicted of drug offenses that are in these 
programs that they crowd out the ability of other people to get in.
  This bill creates with Federal dollars a $25 million new program of 
universal drug testing for the 30,000 people in the District of 
Columbia that are on probation or parole, most of them for things 
related to drug offenses. Included within that program is some $16 
million for drug treatment. That will free up the money that the 
District is currently spending for drug treatment on those persons so 
they can expand the drug treatment even further. This is going to be 
the largest program in the country to combat illegal drug usage. It is 
being funded with our Federal tax dollars. It is a war on drugs.
  We are funding in the bill with Federal taxpayer dollars the most 
aggressive war on drugs of any community in the country, and we are 
doing it because this is our Nation's capital. But we do not want a 
mixed message. Is it too much to ask when we fund a war on drugs that 
the message is a war on drugs and not peaceful co-existence? I fear the 
needle exchange program would use public money to undercut and 
undermine the effort that we have undertaken in this bill to combat 
illegal drugs.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, some on the Republican side treat D.C. 
like their own conservative petri dish, and based on the results, they 
figure out how to impose their ideological agenda elsewhere. It makes 
no sense. We know that AIDS spreads through the sharing of needles by 
injection users. We also know that more than half, up to 75 percent, of 
all children with AIDS contracted HIV from mothers who are intravenous 
drug users or the sexual partners of intravenous drug users. Scientific 
evidence has shown that these programs work. Scientific evidence also 
makes clear that needle exchange programs do not lead to greater drug 
use.
  In fact, do my colleagues not know that an individual that will sign 
up for a free, clean needle is taking their first positive step in 
many, many years, and this is often the beginning for their commitment 
to a healthier drug-free life?
  I suggest, I beg my colleagues, do not vote for this amendment.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Had the gentlewoman read the study, she would have found out that 
they are

[[Page 18641]]

not effective, that the studies have large gaps. It is not good 
science, and the reason that babies have AIDS is because their mothers 
are injecting themselves with illegal drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Vancouver study has been often cited 
here. Let me quote the authors of that study:

       As the authors of the Canadian study, we must point out 
     that these officials have misinterpreted our research. The 
     study in the Lancet, the British medical journal, found that 
     29 cities worldwide where the program was in place, HIV 
     infection dropped by an average of 5.8 percent a year among 
     drug users. In 51 cities that had no needle exchange plans, 
     drug related infection rose by 5.9 percent a year.

  Clearly these efforts can work.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I continue to be 
amazed. I do not believe there is anybody on that side of the aisle 
that has actually read the studies. I have read every study on drug 
use. I want to give my colleagues some statistics about Vancouver. We 
do not misinterpret them; we read the conclusions at the end of the 
studies. I actually have with me the Vancouver study, and I will be 
happy to quote their summation. But let me list for my colleagues some 
of the things that have been said about the Vancouver program.
  The Vancouver Police Department stated there is a 24-hour drug market 
now because there is a study at the location of the needle exchange 
program.
  Number two, property crime of all sorts is highest of any other place 
in Vancouver where the needle exchange program is located.
  Number three, the elementary teachers will not let their 
schoolchildren go outside in this area of Vancouver because there are 
needles strung out all over. They are fearful that these children will 
be infected with one of the needles.
  Absent any mandate for drug treatment, needle exchange programs will 
focus on what they can afford and do best, exchange needles. All 
interviewees associated with Vancouver stated that needle exchange 
program was not a silver bullet, but in reality that is what we are 
trying to do.
  The fact is there is a 33 percent increase in those using needles in 
the needle exchange program of Vancouver, increase in HIV infection 
compared to those drug addicts who are not in a program.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear and convincing. 
Needle exchange programs save lives.
  The government's top scientists, the National Academy of Sciences, 
the National Commission on AIDS, the National Institutes of Health, and 
the General Accounting Office have all concluded that needle exchange 
programs are effective in preventing the spread of AIDS and that they 
do not encourage drug use.
  The numbers are shocking. Every day, 33 people become infected with 
AIDS, a virus as a result of intravenous drug use. The Surgeon General 
has stated that 40 percent of all new AIDS infections in the U.S. are 
either directly or indirectly the result of infection by contaminated 
needles. For women and children, the figure is 75 percent.
  Needle exchange programs are one of the very few programs that have 
demonstrated that they dramatically reduce the number of new AIDS 
infections and save lives. To ban Federal funds for these programs in 
the District of Columbia will bring certain death to thousands.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, we should not prevent the District of Columbia 
from exercising its judgment in spending its money, not Federal money, 
to join the other 113 local governments in preventing the spread of 
AIDS through the use of a needle exchange program.
  We do not have an equal interest, all of us, in the affairs of the 
District with the residents. They live here. We have an interest in a 
decent Capital. Elementary democracy says they should rule most local 
affairs. This bill tramples on that elementary democratic principle. Do 
not vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Tiahrt amendment 
which would prohibit federal funds for needle exchange distribution 
programs in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are debating today is a death sentence 
to many in this country. Mr. Chairman, the evidence is clear and 
convincing. Needle exchange programs save lives!
  The federal government's top scientists, as well as the National 
Academy of Sciences, the National Commission on AIDS, the National 
Institutes of Health, and the General Accounting Office, have all 
concluded that needle exchange programs are effective in preventing the 
spread of AIDS, and that they do not encourage drug use. And yet, with 
this evidence in hand--with scientific proof in hand that needle 
exchange saves lives--some in this Congress would rather let people die 
and suffer than let science and medicine help those in need.
  The numbers are shocking. Every day, 33 people become infected with 
the AIDS virus as a result of intravenous drug use. This includes not 
only drug users themselves, but also their partners and their children. 
The Surgeon General has stated that 40 percent of all new AIDS 
infections in the U.S. are either directly or indirectly the result of 
infection by contaminated needles; for women and children, that figure 
is 75 percent.
  There is no gray area here. We know that needle exchange saves lives, 
and that it does not cause an increase in IV drug use. In fact, studies 
show that IV drug use actually declines as a result of needle exchange, 
because needle exchange programs encourage drug users to seek 
treatment.
  If we have the ability and resources to help those who want and need 
assistance and save them from probable death, then why not help them? 
To remain indifferent to the lives lost is morally bankrupt. The stakes 
are far too high to let a few extremists stand in the way of a sensible 
policy that we know will save many lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that any member of this House could 
deny that the AIDS epidemic is a national and international problem 
that must be meaningfully addressed. Needle exchange programs are one 
of the very few programs that have demonstrated that they dramatically 
reduce the number of new AIDS infections and save lives. There is no 
real controversy surrounding this compelling data--all the experts 
agree it is a fact that needle exchange saves lives. To ban federal 
funds for these programs in the District of Columbia will bring certain 
death to thousands.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not support the use of intravenous drugs. But we 
also have to face reality. People do use drugs. If we can reduce the 
incidence of the use of dirty needles, contaminated with blood borne 
pathogens, then we can reduce the transmissions of AIDS. Scientific 
study after study has shown that needle exchange does reduce the number 
of new AIDS infections. I would like to reiterate that six federally 
funded reports, conducted independently by the National Commission on 
AIDS in 1991, the General Accounting Office in 1993, the University of 
California in 1993, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 
1993, and the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 confirm this fact.
  And, finally, Mr. Chairman, we should not prevent the District of 
Columbia from exercising its judgment, and spending its money--not 
Federal money--to join the other 113 local governments in preventing 
the spread of AIDS through use of a needle exchange program. We do not 
all have an equal interest in the affairs of the District of Columbia. 
That statement is the nub of the problem. Washington is our capital. We 
have an interest in its being a decent capital. But the people who live 
here have a much greater interest in local affairs than my constituents 
in N.Y. That's elementary democracy. And they should decide local 
questions.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about here today is one 
program in the District of Columbia called Prevention Works. Yesterday, 
I met with their administrative staff and some of their board members, 
and

[[Page 18642]]

today I went out and visited with them as their truck and van was on 
the streets of the District of Columbia, about 6 minutes' drive from 
here.
  What is the program we are talking about? It is a 1985 truck with 
unreliable air-conditioning staffed by two remarkable people, Alphonso 
and Vera, showing tough, but compassionate, care for a group of people 
that nobody in this place wants anything to do with.
  As it turns out, my last hour visit this morning is the only time a 
Member of Congress has visited this truck and van and seen what they 
do, and that includes the proponents who are talking so knowledgeably 
about it today. They do, indeed, count their needles, and one can watch 
them do it if one would take the time to visit.
  Second point. The issue is not what we in our own personal 
conclusions or personal thinking, what conclusions we reach. The issue 
is, what standards should this body apply to justify prohibiting 
elected officials in the District of Columbia from not using their own 
local funds. That is the issue.
  We should vote ``no'' on this amendment and let them decide what is 
best for their town.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Madison, Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment to prohibit the District of Columbia from using any funds, 
Federal or local, for needle exchange programs.
  The positive effects of needle exchange are proven. In communities 
all across the country, needle exchange programs have been established 
and are contributing to reductions in HIV transmission among drug 
users. But as important, these programs are beginning to have another 
positive impact. They are bringing drug users to treatment for their 
drug abuse.
  In my hometown of Madison, Wisconsin, outreach workers go out into 
the community and out on to the streets and provide drug users with 
risk-reduction education and referrals to drug counseling, treatment, 
and other medical services. For many of these illegal drug users, the 
needle exchange programs represent an opportunity for an interaction 
with an outreach worker who is tough, yet who cares. Sometimes, not 
always, but sometimes, this interaction is all that is needed to bring 
a desperate person to the point of recognizing that they need help.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise that the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Tiahrt) has 4 minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), as a member of the 
committee, has the right to close.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I am also a member of the committee. Would 
I not have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. Both Members being members of the committee, the Member 
who is in opposition has the right to close, so that would be the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. TIAHRT. I thank Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
for yielding me this time.
  Washington, D.C. City Council's Consensus Budget, as incorporated in 
the appropriations budget, is sound. However, it has been incumbered by 
some very obnoxious amendments. I oppose these amendments to the bill, 
especially the Tiahrt amendment, which viciously prohibits the District 
of Columbia from operating a local private needle exchange program.
  The residents of Washington, D.C. pay taxes. They have a right to 
spend the money the way they want to spend their money. We know now 
that the transmission of HIV from mother to child can be reduced and 
eliminated. Yes, I said eliminated, as demonstrated by San Francisco's 
needle exchange program and outreach program to pregnant women. Why 
would we want to place a death sentence on babies in Washington, D.C. 
when we know how to ensure their survival? For those who want to see 
drug addiction reduced, look at the data from needle exchange programs. 
Such programs lead addicts to the first steps toward recovery.
  We are not condoning IV drug use, just the opposite. We are saying 
that we want babies in Washington, D.C. to be born free of HIV 
infection, and we want to provide a proven option to eliminate drug 
addiction.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield three-quarters of 1 
minute to the gentleman from Brooklyn, New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I do not think we will see a single 
conservative supporting this amendment. After all, I have not been here 
very long, but I have figured out what conservatives support. They 
support local initiatives, church-based initiatives, community-based 
organizations going out and trying to solve a community's problems and 
Washington staying out of their way. So there is no way anyone that 
calls themselves a conservative can possibly support the idea of 
Congress not only opposing the use of Federal funds, but even local 
funds, to try to solve a health problem that my colleagues on that side 
of the aisle have done precious little to solve.
  What we are doing here is stepping all over a classic, conservative 
ideal which has let the District of Columbia manage its affairs the way 
it sees best.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time remains.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 1\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield three-quarters of 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, our distinguished ranking member has 
pointed out the sad tale about the cases of AIDS in Washington, D.C. 
One-half of all AIDS cases in children are a result of injection drug 
use by a parent.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues if they would spend 10 cents to 
spare the suffering of a child with HIV AIDS.
  In San Francisco we have reduced to zero, as the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) mentioned, the transmission rate from mother to 
child because of the needle exchange program and outreach to pregnant 
moms. In Baltimore, Dr. Beilenson has told us there are 1,000 people, 
because of the needle exchange program, who are off drugs now. As far 
as the hepatitis C argument, it does not apply in this case.
  Last year, Dr. Varmus, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Satcher were among the 
scientists who signed a letter saying we have unanimously agreed that 
there is conclusive scientific evidence that needle exchange programs 
reduce transmission.
  I urge my colleagues to have the courage to save a child's life. Vote 
``no'' on the Tiahrt amendment.
  One-half of all AIDS cases in children are the result of injection 
drug use by a parent.
  Would you spend ten cents to spare a child the suffering of AIDS. In 
San Francisco we have reduced to zero the transmission rate from mother 
to child because of the needle exchange program and outreach to 
pregnant moms. That is our experience.
  As for the science, last year, leading scientists issued a statement 
on needle exchange programs. The signers included Dr. Harold Varmus, 
Nobel Prize winner and director of the National Institutes of Health; 
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Disease; and Dr. David Satcher, our Surgeon General.
  They wrote:

       After reviewing all of the research, we have unanimously 
     agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that 
     needle exchange programs, as part of a comprehensive HIV 
     prevention strategy, are an effective public health 
     intervention that reduces the transmission of HIV and does 
     not encourage the use of illegal drugs.

  The Tiahrt amendment tramples on the ability of D.C. residents to 
govern themselves. A vote against this amendment is not a vote for 
needle exchange.
  Have the courage to save a child's life--vote ``no'' on Tiahrt.

[[Page 18643]]


  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the body that what my amendment 
does is retain current law. It is law that was supported by the Drug 
Czar, General Barry McCaffrey; it was passed by this body, the House; 
it was passed by the Senate; it was signed into law by the President of 
the United States.
  We have heard that we are trying to influence what the taxpayers want 
here in the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I am a taxpayer in the 
District of Columbia. All of us here are a taxpayer in the District of 
Columbia. I care about these people. I care about what is going on.
  There is a great deal of desperation for solutions here, and people 
are reaching far to say these days are successful, but they have not 
read the studies. It is not a successful program.
  The real reason that I am trying to stop this ineffective program, at 
least from public funds, is because it enables people to carry on a 
destructive behavior. I have friends who are recovered alcoholics. They 
said the worst thing that they had during their time of trying to 
recover was someone to enable them to continue their destructive 
behavior. That is what we are doing for these people. It is as if we 
are driving nails in their coffin; we are enabling them.
  We are doing a lot to combat illegal drugs in this bill. Mr. 
Chairman, $25 million is set aside to combat illegal drugs, and yet we 
are enabling the men and women of this city to take illegal drugs and 
inject them into their veins. I think it is wrong; I think it is 
destructive. It does currently go on, it is privately funded, and I 
think that this does nothing to stop that. If people want to waste 
their money on an ineffective program, so be it, just not with public 
funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of all that I have 
admiration for those who support this program, because what they are 
really saying is that they care about those people who are addicted. 
However, I also would say, we care too.
  The debate divides on how best to solve the problem, and the issue 
is, are we best solving the problem by reducing risk, or do we best 
solve the problem by avoiding risk?
  I want to give my colleagues a corollary. This year, 13 million 
Americans are going to get infected with an STD; 45 percent of those 
will never get rid of that infection. Our message to our children has 
been, you can practice risky behavior as long as you use safe methods 
to do it. So our message has been, we are going to reduce the risk. And 
as our message of risk reduction has come about, we have the largest 
incidence of sexually transmitted disease of any society, and the 
largest growth of incurable viral diseases. HIV is nothing compared to 
what is going to happen in this country in terms of chlamydia, human 
papilloma virus, and the cancer that is going to be associated with it.
  So the debate really decides, how do we care the most? The compassion 
exhibited by wanting to eliminate the transmission is a wonderful, 
compelling argument. But it is not enough compassion. We have to have 
enough compassion to eliminate the problem and not enable people to 
fail, as we are enabling our children to fail, by our message of safe 
sex with a condom that does not protect 50 percent of the sexually 
transmitted disease in this country today.
  So the heart is right; the message is wrong. If we really want to 
help these people, then we will redouble our efforts to drug treatment 
centers, not enable them to continue to fail.
  The final thing is, what happens to somebody when they get hepatitis 
C in this country? And that is the growing epidemic in this country, 
not HIV. It is hepatitis C. That person does one of two things: they 
either die or they get a liver transplant.
  So if we want to enable this epidemic to continue to flourish, then 
we need to give all of the drug addicts in this country needles, 
because they are sharing the needles anyway, and that is what the 
studies show. We are not lessening their long-term health consequences; 
we are, in fact, enabling them to fail and die of diseases.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not just we who are opposed to this amendment who 
are saying that the needle exchange program does not increase the level 
of drug addiction, nor increase the amount of AIDS. We are listening to 
the experts. The American Medical Association says this program is 
effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses 
Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, 
the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the 
National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control. Every 
single professional organization tells us this program works.

                              {time}  1245

  We do not feel particularly comfortable with this program because we 
do not want to encourage drug addiction, but when we are dealing with 
one city that has the worst level of drug addiction and AIDS in the 
country, they should be able to make their own decision on what works. 
There are 113 cities that have been able to make that decision, major 
cities. They are using this program.
  All we are saying in this amendment is do not use Federal funds. It 
passed in a bipartisan vote in the committee. We urge this body to 
support the Committee on Appropriations. Vote down this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the 
amendment offered by Representative Tiahrt that prohibits federal and 
local funds from being spent on needle exchange programs in the 
District of Columbia. I object to this intrusion into the funding 
priorities of the District. I also oppose this amendment because needle 
exchange has been shown to be an effective method of HIV prevention.
  Needle exchange is supported by medical and health related 
organizations. Last year, the National Institute of Health issued a 
determination that needle exchange programs reduce HIV transmission and 
such program do not encourage the use of illegal drugs.
  Thus, the health impact of this amendment would be devastating in 
this city. As with most major U.S. cities, D.C. faces an AIDS epidemic 
that must be fought on all levels. D.C. has the highest rate of new HIV 
infections in the country. AIDS is the third largest cause of death in 
this city. We must not handicap this city's ability to stem the tide of 
AIDS transmission.
  I also believe that the residents of this city deserve to use the 
mechanism of democracy and its elected officials should be able to make 
decisions that benefit the citizens. The local government in D.C. has 
chosen to use its own funds to address this need.
  Congress has no business in the local affairs of the District 
government. D.C. has chosen to implement this program to prevent the 
spread of AIDS. This nationally recognized program has been successful 
in bringing addicts into treatment. D.C. is the only jurisdiction that 
has a federal bar on the use of local funds.
  The District of Columbia no longer receives the federal payment, thus 
all of these funds are from local taxpayers. I oppose this intrusion 
into local affairs and I believe that this amendment will severely hurt 
the residents of D.C. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to the Tiahrt amendment to H.R. 2587. As a Member of this 
House representing a region of the country with an astronomically high 
rate of HIV transmission and AIDS, I cannot support this bill. I cannot 
support legislation that not only prohibits the use of federal funds, 
but also prohibits the use of local or other funds. What are we saying 
to the citizens of the District of Columbia when their elected 
representative does not support this bill?
  HIV and AIDS continues to plague this Nation. Yes, we have seen some 
much-needed improvements in the extension of lives through better 
treatment and we have seen the number of deaths resulting from AIDS 
fall for the first time. But we have not and will not see the rate of 
HIV transmission fall if we continue to let politics rule the 
legislative process.

[[Page 18644]]

  The needle exchange programs that have been implemented in inner-
cities throughout the country are playing a crucial role in reducing 
HIV transmission, assisting HIV positive drug users in obtaining 
necessary medical care and drug treatment, and providing essential 
information and AIDS. This is critical for the hundreds of thousands of 
adults who do not know that their partners are using drugs, and for the 
innocent children who are born with this fatal disease.
  Public health officials do not support this amendment and I encourage 
my colleagues to join me in voting against this amendment, which is 
full of politics and void of reason.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Tiahrt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) will 
be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Norton

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Norton:
       Page 54, strike lines 19 through 25 (and redesignate the 
     succeeding provisions accordingly).

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), the cosponsor of this amendment, for 
offering it in the Committee on Appropriations.
  This amendment simply strikes gratuitous and now moot language 
carried over from last year in the bill that forbids the District to 
use its own funds on a lawsuit testing whether American citizens who 
live in the District are entitled to voting rights in the Congress.
  Members are looking at the only Member of this body who represents 
taxpaying American citizens who are denied full representation in the 
Congress. The language in this bill adds to the basic denial of D.C. 
voting rights, the denial of the right to seek redress in the courts.
  Does this Congress really want to pile on the sensitive issue of full 
democratic representation by seeking to keep the District from testing 
that denial in court? This provision in the bill is unworthy of this 
House, unless we want to cross over and join the authoritarian regimes 
of the world.
  In the darkest days of southern segregation, no State sought to 
legislate black people out of court suits. That is exactly what this 
amendment does to D.C. residents, however. It is a self-serving attempt 
to maintain the status quo denial of rights, even if it means standing 
to bar the courthouse door.
  It should be enough to defeat this amendment that the denial of court 
redress is patently unAmerican. It is also futile and moot. The lawsuit 
for D.C. voting rights recently argued before a three-judge panel in 
the District court is being carried pro bono by a major law firm.
  The District's involvement always was minimal. The city's Corporation 
Counsel participated in the oral argument with permission of the court 
to participate pro bono. The corporation counsel has resigned. His only 
involvement now would be as a private citizen with no D.C. funds.
  Please do not allow history to add to the litany of denials of 
democracy for the people of the District. Wherever they may stand on 
their constitutional jurisdiction over the District, this is a 
different case. Members surely do not want to be counted against 
peaceable redress of constitutional rights through the courts. No 
Federal funds are involved. Even District expenditures are not now 
being used to support this suit.
  Please remove these proceedings once and for all from our 
appropriation bill.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to support and am proud to be a cosponsor of 
this amendment that we offered in the Committee on Appropriations.
  I agree with the delegate, the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C. (Ms. 
Norton) that it is unconstitutional, it is unfair, and it is 
undemocratic. This entire D.C. appropriations bill is $463 million. The 
D.C. residents in 1996 sent over $4 billion to this Federal government. 
In 1997 the same, over $4 billion to this Federal government. The bill 
today is only $463 million.
  Members have heard debate over the last hour on the needle exchange 
program. We are not going to get into that, but the citizens do have a 
right, as every citizen of the country has, to spend its local money on 
those things that they deem necessary for their people.
  This amendment that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) and I were offering would say that the residents of the 
District of Columbia can spend their local dollars to go to court to 
challenge the notion that they cannot vote in this Congress, that they 
do not have a voting representative in this Congress.
  The District of Columbia has more population than three of America's 
States. All of those States have representatives in this Congress who 
vote. They all have two Senators in the U.S. Senate who vote. Why, 
then, do we deprive over 500,000 people who have chosen Washington, 
D.C. as their place of residence the right to have a vote in this 
Congress, the right to have two Senators, as all other States have, and 
the right to use their own local money for those programs that they 
deem necessary?
  The Congressional Research Service goes just a little bit further. 
They say that the District of Columbia, which is denied the right to 
vote, should have a representative in Congress. District residents 
carry some of the same burdens of citizenship that all American 
citizens pay and do. They pay taxes, they serve in our wars, they die 
in our wars.
  Still, this Congress will not allow them to use their own local funds 
to challenge in court, and I might add, as the delegate has mentioned, 
on a pro bono basis, as some have already said, yes, we support D.C., 
we want to go to court to fight for the right to vote. Why, then, does 
this Congress not allow the D.C. residents, with the backing of its 
mayor and its council and its delegate, permission to use their local 
funds that they also pay, in addition to their Federal funds, allow 
them the right to go to court and use those funds to defend their right 
for a vote in this Congress, for a vote on those referenda that they 
deem necessary?
  Mr. Chairman, this is not right, it is not fair and it is not 
Democratic. As was mentioned earlier, over 500,000 people call D.C. 
their home. They pay Federal taxes, over $4 billion to this Federal 
Government. The bill before us is $463 million. Additionally, they pay 
local taxes.
  What we are saying in our amendment, allow D.C. to use their local 
money to go to court should they want to, to defend their right to 
vote. This is a glorious country, the best country in the world. The 
citizens of D.C., American citizens, over 500,000 of them, deserve the 
right to use their local funds as they see fit.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I 
very much appreciate the arguments that we have heard from the 
gentlewomen regarding their support of this particular amendment.
  I feel obligated to point out that what they seek to strike from the 
bill is language that last year was approved by the House of 
Representatives, approved by the U.S. Senate, and signed into law by 
the President of the United States. Specifically, it is language that 
says that public funds shall not be expended for an initiative or a 
civil lawsuit to promote a vote in Congress for the District of 
Columbia.
  I well understand the desire of the proponents of this amendment and 
many other people to have that vote in

[[Page 18645]]

the Congress, and I am sure that they understand also the special 
status which the Constitution of the United States gave to the 
District.
  The question is not whether they have the right to pursue their 
lawsuit. It is being pursued. It is being pursued without taxpayers' 
money being used to sue the Federal Government over this issue. They 
wish to be able to do so. They have already filed the action. They have 
pointed out before that legal representation was provided pro bono, 
which is to say, as a public service, and without charge, to finance 
their side of this legal action.
  It is not necessary to expend public money either to go back and pay 
people for work already done as a gift for free, nor is it necessary to 
expend the public money to enable people to have their day in court. 
They have their day in court. They are suing the Federal Government, 
challenging the Constitution of the United States. They have their 
right to do so. The issue here is whether taxpayers' money should be 
used to finance the suit.
  If Members believe taxpayers' money should be used to finance the 
suit, then of course they should vote for the amendment that the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has offered. If Members do 
not believe taxpayers' money should be used to finance the suit, 
Members should vote against the amendment, which is a vote in favor of 
the same position that this Congress passed and the President signed 
into law last year.
  We had a vote in committee. The amendment was defeated in committee. 
We had a vote in the House of Representatives last year, and this same 
motion was defeated last year on a rollcall vote of 243 to 181.
  It is not a new issue. We have not injected it as a new issue in the 
bill this year. This is a continuation of the restriction on public 
money to finance such a lawsuit or an initiative petition.
  There is no need to spend taxpayers' money for people to have their 
day in court. They have their day in court and they are entitled to it.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a former local elected official in 
support of this amendment. I hope at this moment that every mayor and 
every council person in the United States is watching what is happening 
on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, because they are 
seeing a debate about the future of America, of where the attitude is 
in Congress of how we are going to control Federal funds.
  The only Federal funds that we can specifically control are those 
Federal funds that go to support the city of the District of Columbia, 
a city that has an elected mayor and an elected city council; a city 
that, like every other city in the United States, sits down in open, 
public discussion and debates how they can be a better city.
  If Members are watching the actions on the floor today, they will see 
that even though they have gone through that process at the local 
level, the heavy-handed Congress here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives is adopting amendments which are mean, which take away 
the city's ability to provide safety measures for their inhabitants 
with needle exchanges, to take away adoptions, to take away legal 
medical marijuana, even though the States that many Members represent 
have already passed such measures at the State level and local level.
  They are taking away the ability of a city to file a lawsuit. These 
are amendments that are not American amendments, these are amendments 
that are trying to be heavyhanded. They are not about giving local 
control, which everybody up here talks about, to get the Federal 
Government off peoples' backs, allow cities to be what they can be.
  These amendments ought to be defeated. This amendment ought to be 
adopted because it deletes one of those mean provisions. I ask my 
colleagues to vote against all of the amendments except for those of 
the gentlewoman by the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who was 
elected by the citizens of Washington, D.C. to be here on the floor of 
the House of Representatives.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this particular amendment. Let me 
just tell my colleagues why. We have been piling on the city with some 
very difficult issues that I feel deeply about; as well, needle 
exchange programs, which I oppose. I do not believe that we ought to be 
giving free needles to people who are committing illegal acts.
  The couples' adoptions, the limitation on the medicinal use of 
marijuana, this is something that in other jurisdictions, in Arizona 
and in Colorado and other States that have had referenda, the citizens 
have decided they want to do that. In the District of Columbia we did 
not even let them count the votes.
  However people feel about those issues, and I am conflicted on these, 
along with a lot of my other colleagues, what we are talking about here 
is the right of the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a vote 
on the House floor and to pursue a final judicial decree that will set 
their rights at this point, which have been questioned in the courts.
  We ask ourselves, if we cannot use city money, who is going to do 
this? This is city money, it is not Federal dollars. If this were a 
prohibition on Federal dollars going to the city, I can understand 
Congress might have a reason that they would want to support this, but 
these are city dollars. If Members do not like this, they could run for 
the City Council in the District and probably take a different point 
view, but I doubt they would be elected successfully.
  What we have to remember is that the relationship between the city of 
Washington, D.C. and the Federal Government is unique. It is described 
in the Constitution. It goes back to the late 1700s, when we wanted to 
have a Federal enclave that would not be at the mercy of any State 
government. It happened when some militia who had been unpaid from the 
Revolutionary War fell upon the Pennsylvania militia, who were in 
sympathy with them, and let them chase the Continental Congress across 
the river from Philadelphia into New Jersey.

                              {time}  1300

  At that point, the continental Congress went ahead and said we have 
to have our own Federal enclave. We cannot trust any State to look 
after the Federal side of things and not take sides and disputes 
between States. As a result of this, the District of Columbia was born.
  Now, a lot has changed in 200 years. The city still does not have a 
vote on this floor, although their residents pay taxes. They can be 
drafted. They have served in the military. They do the things everybody 
in all of our States do.
  It has been likened that the District of Columbia is like a city, and 
we are the State. But my colleagues have to remember cities across this 
country have representatives in State legislatures in the State 
Capitols and have a vote. The District of Columbia does not.
  All this amendment does is it says, because there have been some 
questions raised about the constitutionality of whether the city should 
have a vote on the floor, that they could pursue that judicial remedy 
in the court system with their own money collected by their own 
citizens through their duly-elected leaders.
  With all of the other things piled on, I think the least we can do 
since we do not give the city a vote on the floor is to allow them to 
use their own money and pursue their judicial remedies the way any 
jurisdiction in the country can do.
  For heaven's sakes, if we want democracy to work in the District of 
Columbia, we have to nurture it, we have to allow some decisions made 
to be final. We have to allow the city to make its own decisions and 
not have every decision they make be questioned by Congress. When we do 
that, they are not going to make the tough decisions because they know 
they are going to get overriden here, and democracy will fail.
  For almost 100 years, the city had no elections, and we had, over the 
last few

[[Page 18646]]

years, actually some problems, and we set up a control board over that. 
But now we have a new mayor, a new council. They are working forward. 
Let us let them make their own decisions. Let us not second them on 
everything they do.
  So I support the amendment of the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia, and I hope my colleagues will join me.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is unlike any of the other amendments that are 
pending. This amendment deals with the most fundamental right of every 
American, each and every American, whether they live in the District of 
Columbia, Maryland, the State of Georgia. Wherever they may live, this 
deals with the fundamentals of our democracy.
  I see the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) on the floor who argued 
passionately to uphold the principles of the Constitution of the United 
States to the President of the United States. Conservatives correctly 
focus on the rights of minorities against what could be an oppressive 
government and rule by majority. Liberals correctly focus on the rights 
of individuals as they may be adversely affected by an oppressive 
majority.
  Mr. Chairman, our Founding Fathers anticipated that problem because 
they dealt with an oppressive king against whose judgment there was no 
appeal. So in that most basic document of, really, world government, 
the Constitution of the United States, I say world government to the 
extent that all the world looks at it as a model, we guarantee to 
citizens the right to redress of their grievances through the courts of 
this land, not because we agree with what they seek, but because we 
believe it is fundamental to prevent governmental abuse and the 
denigration of the rights of each and every American. This deals with 
our most fundamental rights.
  Let me say, the chairman says that this was considered last year, was 
included in the bill. He said that Tuesday night on the floor. But the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) knows full well that this was in a 
bill of about $400 billion in appropriation, eight appropriation bills.
  The President opposed this provision, but clearly could not veto that 
bill in the last days of our session, as we were about to leave town in 
October before the election. So he signed, yes, the bill, but not 
because he agreed with this provision. Very frankly, no Member has 
debated this provision.
  Secondly, he says there was a vote in committee. I was shocked, 
saddened, chagrined to find every conservative voting with a provision 
that says to citizens of America, you cannot go to court and use your 
corporate funds to do so.
  I tell my colleagues, Oklahoma City goes to court using taxpayers' 
funds to redress grievances against the Federal Government. I tell my 
colleagues that happens in Tulsa as well. It happens in Baltimore. It 
happens in San Francisco and L.A. and Chicago. Large and small cities, 
counties, and States bring suits against the Federal Government for the 
redress of grievances.
  Is that not a fundamental American right? How can we say in this 
bill, corporately, the District of Columbia, through its government, 
not with our funds, not with Federal dollars, with their own funds, 
cannot redress the grievance and say our representative on the floor of 
the House of Representatives ought to have a vote. That is our 
constitutional right.
  Is it our position that we will say, no, we disagree with that 
objective; and, therefore, they cannot go to court?
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) says, oh, well, we are not 
doing that. Shoot, they can get pro bono expenses. They can get people 
to donate it, or they can get private donations. They can. The 
gentleman is correct. So can every other State, county, and 
municipality in America.
  Would any of my colleagues support legislation which says that Tulsa 
or Oklahoma City or Baltimore or Upper Marlboro could not bring suit 
for the redress of grievances and saying that something is either 
against the Constitution or against the Federal statute or against the 
regulation? I cannot believe my colleagues would do that. This is so 
fundamental to what we believe about our country.
  I want to tell my colleagues, I was chairman of the Helsinki 
Commission until 1995, and I traveled to Sophia in Bulgaria. Bulgaria 
would not tell Sophia, the capital of Bulgaria, they cannot bring suit. 
They would under the Communist government, because one could not bring 
suit at all. That made us really different.
  Bucharest in Romania the same thing, Warsaw in Poland, Prague in 
Czechoslovakia.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this ought not to be a partisan issue. This 
is an issue we fought a Cold War over. We did not fight it, luckily, 
for the most part, with bullets. We fought it with a commitment to our 
ideals of freedom and individual liberty. Not collective liberty, 
individual. No citizen, no matter how wrong they might be, is precluded 
from coming to the courts and saying, everybody may disagree with me, 
but I think I am right.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that, on this issue, my colleagues summon up the 
wisdom and the courage to say we ought not to do this because it is 
inconsistent with what we believe about our country, what has made our 
country different.
  Do not tell the residents of the District of Columbia that they have 
a grievance, but only if they get the largess of some private donor 
will they be able to seek constitutional relief. Do not do that to 
them, not because they are the District of Columbia under the 
Constitution as a State or a District that we have authority over, but 
because there are 500,000 Americans, just as I am an American, just as 
my colleagues are Americans, 260 million of us, not D.C. Americans, 
Maryland Americans, Oklahoma Americans, but Americans, protected by the 
best document man ever forged, the Constitution of the United States, 
that holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are 
created equal, each one of us, endowed, not by the D.C. subcommittee, 
not by the House of Representatives, endowed by God with certain 
inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. That is what they seek. Do not preclude it.
  Admit mistake in this area. Support this amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a very hurtful experience each year when the D.C. 
bill comes to the floor and there is something in the bill that, in my 
opinion, in some way wants to turn back the hands of time and to turn 
back justice and fairness to the people of this District.
  The language in H.R. 2857 should be amended by the courageous 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). She has fought 
a very hard fight. Each of us should understand this fight, because we 
seek justice and we seek freedom. It should be amended.
  The language in the bill is targeted, and I say targeted because it 
has some very dangerous inferences. It is gloomy. It is dark. To me, it 
appears to point at one group of people, and that group of people live 
in the District of Columbia.
  Who are those people? Most of the people in the District of Columbia 
are black like me. Most of them in there are people who have, for 
years, their rights have been taken away. I have sat here for 8 years 
and heard constantly, constantly that we beat away to try to take away 
their rights.
  Now, whose fault is it? It is Congress' fault if we allow any 
diminution of the rights of the people who live in Washington, D.C. If 
they lived in Podunk, Idaho, I would be here saying the same thing. 
Regardless of their color or their creed, I would be here. But I am 
here to say that this particular bill has dangerous inferences. We do 
not want that.
  First of all, the language in the bill is not only undemocratic, but 
it is

[[Page 18647]]

moot, because what the language assumes did not happen. The language 
says, none of the funds may be used by the D.C. Corporate Counsel, and 
it goes on and on, to provide for civic action which seeks to require 
Congress to provide for voting representation in Congress for D.C.
  Their amendment repeals language in the bill. The Norton amendment 
repeals that language, and it should be. Because it will forbid the 
District from using its own funds.
  Mr. Chairman, D.C. did not hire anyone that was not eligible to use 
this. It was done on a pro bono basis by a downtown law firm. So I 
think my colleagues are saying that the city's corporate counsel, which 
was a chief lawyer, did carry some of the argument before the three-
judge panel. That may be true. But his involvement in the case was pro 
bono, no D.C. funding at all. He received permission from the courts to 
participate in this manner. Even though the language we seek to repeal 
in the bill this year was also included in the bill last year, I 
repeat, no city dollars were spent.
  The man who argued the case as corporate counsel, Judge John Farren, 
has gone back to being a judge and would most likely handle the portion 
of the appeal to the Supreme Court along with the pro bono downtown law 
firm.
  The language in the bill is, therefore, undemocratic. It is moot. It 
takes away representation. My colleagues would not want it to happen to 
them. I appeal to my colleageus, think of the facts. The residents of 
the District of Columbia are living, breathing people who have the same 
kind of finesse that my colleagues have.
  They do not sit here in this Congress. They are not even represented. 
They do not even have a vote. But they have a very strong 
Representative who is here to say to us this is wrong. D.C. residents 
pay taxes just like my colleagues and I do. They are the only American 
citizens who are denied full representation in Congress. We do not want 
this.
  This Congress has been democratic in its viewpoints on both sides of 
the ledger, on both sides. I appeal to the Republicans to kill this 
part of the bill. I appeal to my colleagues to vote for the Norton 
amendment, because it keeps and gives representation for people who 
live in the District of Columbia.
  Let us not cast a shadow on the democracy which we fought so hard to 
maintain. Do not let this little paragraph in the bill keep us from 
being the upright democracy in fighting for justice as we could.

                              {time}  1315

  Also, let us allow D.C. a chance to seek redress in the courts, just 
as our American system indicates.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the committee and say to 
them to please support the Norton amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an anti-obscenity amendment. What this bill 
says is that the District of Columbia cannot use its own funds to sue 
in the courts of this land for the right to be represented. That is 
what this bill says, as it presently stands. That provision is an 
obscenity in a democracy, and any Member of this House who votes to 
sustain it ought to hang their head in shame.
  We all represent at least half a million Americans, and for any 
Member of this place to have the unmitigated gall to come in here and 
say that the Americans, the Americans who live in the District of 
Columbia cannot use their own dollars to pursue the ability to be 
represented is an outrage.
  This amendment should not have a single opponent in this House. This 
House does not stand for public representation, it does not stand for 
democracy, it stands for taxation without representation, which we 
fought a revolution to overturn, if it does not support this amendment. 
That is all we need to know about it, that is all I need to say about 
it. Shame on anyone who votes against it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Largent

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

       Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 106-263 offered by 
     Mr. Largent:
       Page 65, insert after line 24 the following:
       Sec. 167. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used to carry out any joint adoption of a child between 
     individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and a Member opposed each will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I wish to begin the debate by reading the actual amendment. It is a 
short amendment and it is very explicit. It says, ``None of the funds 
contained in this Act may used to carry out any joint adoption of a 
child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.'' 
That, Mr. Chairman, very simply, is the amendment.
  This amendment is going to create a lot of controversy. I know that. 
We have been down this road before. We have debated this amendment 
before, and the House approved this amendment last year. We will have 
some of the same controversy and some of the misrepresentations of what 
this amendment actually does, and I would like to address some of these 
things in my opening statement, Mr. Chairman.
  What does it do, exactly? It prevents the District of Columbia from 
granting joint adoption to individuals that are not related by blood or 
marriage. Very simply, adoptions should be about the best interest of 
the child. Adoptions should not be about awarding children in some sort 
of culture war.
  Why are we here? Because a District of Columbia appeals court made a 
ruling that granted adoption to two men that were unrelated by blood or 
marriage, the adoption of a young girl. In that decision the judge 
said, ``It is unclear to the court what Congress' intent is regarding 
joint adoptions to unrelated people.'' Thus, we are here today, Mr. 
Chairman, to give the courts our clear intent.
  Here is the issue: What is in the best interest of the child? To 
throw them into an ambiguous, confused amorphous legal situation that 
does not establish clear lines of authority or responsibility, in my 
opinion, is not in the best interest of a child, and that is why we are 
debating this amendment today.
  Mr. Chairman, we have kids who have had a rough start at the 
beginning of their life already. How can it be in their best interest 
to place them in a confused legal setting, one in which the only legal 
affiliation between these individuals is the address that they possibly 
share? For instance, Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith adopt together and are 
given joint custody. Well, is the child a Smith or is the child a Jones 
or both? What reason does the child have to feel secure about their 
future when the couples who adopt them have not even expressed a 
commitment to one another by having any sort of legally recognized 
relationship?
  What happens if Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith part? How do the courts 
determine custody in such a case? Nobody knows. There is no legal 
precedent. What happens if more than two people unrelated seek joint 
custody? Why not three or four people unrelated by blood or marriage 
seeking joint custody of a kid? Nobody knows what happens if we go down 
this road. Is this really in the best interest of the child? Absolutely 
not.

[[Page 18648]]

  Finally, and most importantly, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that many 
will distort this amendment as gay bashing, or others will say this is 
going to limit the ability of adoptions to go forward. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. Nothing in this amendment precludes any, any, 
individual or family related by blood or marriage from seeking 
adoption. Any individual, regardless of their sexual preference, can 
still seek legal adoption and then be related through that adoption 
with the child.
  What this amendment will do, Mr. Chairman, is assure that these kids, 
who desperately need love and, most importantly, security, that they 
will get it by ensuring that they are placed in legally recognized 
families.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment, and to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is quite 
right that an appeals court decided that two men could adopt a child in 
the District of Columbia, a little baby girl. I suspect that one of the 
reasons was that there are over 3,000 foster care children awaiting 
adoption, more than 3,000, in the District of Columbia. They do not 
have loving parents.
  Another reason why the court saw fit to allow this is that they had 
ruled on the parenting ability of these two people. And, in fact, every 
day domestic law judges, with the advice of social workers and other 
professionals, make determinations on the parental suitability of 
people wishing to adopt children who have no parents. That is the way 
it is throughout the country.
  This amendment is not law today, but if the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Largent) prevails, the District of Columbia will stand alone in 
not allowing the court system, with the advice of professionals, to 
make that determination. The District of Columbia will stand alone in 
having that determination made by politicians in this body who have no 
knowledge of the suitability of those parents and no direct knowledge 
of the neediness of those children.
  If we adopt this amendment, we are saying we would rather these 
children be left as orphans, without parents, than allow two people, 
who the court decides are suitable parents, to adopt those children. 
That is what this amendment is all about. We are saying we do not want 
to make that determination, we want professionals to make that 
determination. We want the domestic law judges, who are today making 
that determination, to be able to continue to and not be precluded by 
this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, in surveys that have been conducted, American citizens, 
by a 4-to-1 margin, say that they would prefer the court system to 
conduct its business without political interference. So we are not 
carrying out the public interest, we are not carrying out the interest 
of our own constituents, we are not even doing what they do in our own 
jurisdictions today if we pass this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there are going to be any number of very substantive 
arguments raised against this amendment. I want to enable my colleagues 
to make those arguments, but I would very strongly urge defeat of this 
amendment in deference to the professionals in the court system who are 
able to make these decisions in every other part of the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to remind the 
body that there has never, in the history of this country, been a 
legislative body at any level that has approved joint adoption to 
people that are unrelated by blood or marriage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Shows).
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Largent amendment.
  Adoption is the utmost expression of family values, for it allows 
people the opportunity to extend their homes and their hearts to people 
in need. But adoption should not be a selfish act. Adoption is for the 
child's benefit. And if we are to make adoption a meaningful life 
opportunity for children, they must be given the stability any child 
needs to grow and thrive.
  People who are not married but sharing a house always remain as free 
to adopt as ever. But the legal relationship created by the adoption 
should be one between the child and the single adoptive parent, rather 
than between a child and multiple parents who have no legal 
relationships amongst each other.
  If we really love our children, let us be fair to them. Let them grow 
up in a stable environment. The Largent amendment is about taking 
family relationships and raising children seriously. It is fair and 
reasonable.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, it is a sad fact that not all parents are 
fit parents, and I know firsthand that child abuse and neglect occurs 
in all kinds of families. But let us be clear: usually it is among the 
so-called traditional two-parent families rather than families of less 
conventional description. As a district attorney, my office prosecuted 
these parents and put some of them in jail.
  I also know firsthand, as a trustee of an adoption resource center, 
that difficult-to-adopt children are placed in adoptive homes with good 
parents and families that come in all shapes and sizes. Some of the 
most loving, responsible, and nurturing families I know would fail the 
litmus test of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent). And that 
would truly be a tragedy for the 3,300 children now languishing in the 
District's foster care system.
  Most of these children in need of adoption are neglected or abused by 
their biological parents. Many of them are children with special needs, 
children whose chances of adoption and a chance at life are doubtful 
even without the restriction that the Largent amendment would impose.
  So with so many kids out there who need decent homes, this is not the 
time for Congress to start setting criteria for those who would be 
permitted to adopt.

                              {time}  1330

  The only test we should apply is the one the law already uses to 
determine whether a child belongs in a particular family and that is in 
the best interest of the child; and that should be left to the courts 
and the professionals, as the ranking Member indicated.
  This amendment will produce cruel consequences, unintended I am sure, 
but cruel nonetheless, cruel because it will deny some child a family 
and opportunities that most of us in this body were fortunate to have 
and, because by the luck of the draw, we were born to parents who 
nurtured and loved us.
  Defeat this amendment and give some kid a family.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma.
  Some who oppose this amendment will emphasize its unwarranted 
intrusion into family matters best left to the people of the District 
of the Columbia.
  I share that concern, Mr. Chairman. But today I wish to speak as an 
adoptive parent, who is concerned first and foremost with the well-
being of abandoned and neglected children.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a sad fact that not all parents are fit parents. 
Child abuse and neglect occurs in all kinds of families. Among the 
``birth families'' no less than adoptive families. Among so-called 
``traditional two-parent families'' no less than families of less 
conventional description.
  But good parents and families come in all shapes and sizes, too. Some 
of the most loving, nurturing and supportive families I know would fail 
Mr. Largent's litmus test.
  And that would be a tremendous loss for the 3,300 children 
languishing in the D.C. foster-care system--many of them neglected or 
abused by their biological parents, many of them children with special 
needs.

[[Page 18649]]

  With so many kids out there who need decent homes, this is not the 
time for Congress to start setting criteria for who will be permitted 
to adopt. The only test we should apply is the one the law already uses 
to determine whether a child belongs in a particular family situation 
or not. That test is whether the placement is in the ``best interests'' 
of the child.
  That evaluation requires the careful weighing of a multitude of 
factors by those with the requisite expertise. We should ask whether 
the parents have the means to feed and clothe the child and see to its 
education. We should ask whether they maintain a home that will offer 
the child a harmonious, stable and nurturing environment. We should ask 
whether they have the skills and the commitment it takes to be a good 
parent.
  When we find a family that offers all this to a child in need, what 
kind of society would reject that family because the parents are ``not 
related by blood or marriage? '' What kind of society would say it is 
better for the child to be in an institution or on the street?
  I believe we should embrace that family, Mr. Chairman, and be 
thankful that a lost child has been given a second chance in life.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat the amendment.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the body once again that there is 
nothing in this amendment that precludes any legally recognized family 
from adopting.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  I feel pretty strong about this. I think Members on both sides of the 
aisle should realize that in my home State of Florida there is a case 
pending challenging the State of Florida because it has a similar ban 
as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has in this amendment on 
such adoptions.
  So in my State it is the law. The Largent amendment is trying to make 
it a part of the D.C. appropriations.
  This particular lawsuit was developed in a full-fledged war over 
cultural values. And that is what we are talking about, make no mistake 
about it. On one side, we have the ACLU that has filed a class-action 
suit last month challenging the State's ban on such adoptions.
  Two years ago, a lawsuit by them similar in nature was filed in which 
the couple won. However, our State's Supreme Court overruled it. So now 
the ACLU is filing again.
  I would like to read from the article in the newspaper about the 
justification for the Supreme Court when they actually decided to rule 
in favor of the existing law in the State of Florida and which supports 
the Largent amendment.
  The analysis was done by psychologist Paul Cameron. This is what he 
said, among other points. He said, ``The children raised in homosexual 
households experience more emotional problems, suffer more from 
unstable home lives, and struggle more with their own sexual identities 
later in life.''
  He goes on to say, ``Children need and deserve the best environment 
possible in which to learn and grow. The traditional mom-and-dad family 
provides this, while homosexual relationships do not.''
  Now, this is a clinical psychologist who has said this. And he said 
that this supports the Supreme Court's decision.
  So I think it is clear to my colleagues that what we are talking 
about, the real question, is, do we want to have this appropriations 
allow a back-door approach to push for the legalization of same-sex 
marriages by allowing them to adopt children?
  So I support my colleague from Oklahoma in what he is trying to do. 
It simply prohibits funds from being used to allow joint adoption by 
persons who are unrelated by either blood or marriage. That is pretty 
simple. I do not think there is anything in the motion to object to.
  To my way of thinking, a family is not made up of unrelated 
individuals that just happen to be in the household who happen to be 
living together and then suddenly want to adopt a child. Neither 
Congress nor the legislature of any of the States have authorized joint 
adoption by unrelated individuals.
  So I think his amendment is very simple. I think it should be 
supported by my colleagues. I hope it will pass.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) who is probably the only 
genuine expert we have on this issue. She was the State Secretary of 
Child Welfare for the State of New Mexico and knows this issue in her 
mind and in her heart.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, 99 times out of 100 my colleague from 
Oklahoma is right. The best thing for a child is to be in a family 
where the mother and the father are married to each other.
  The kids that I worry about, though, are not the healthy infants. 
They are the foster kids that nobody else wants. They are mentally ill. 
They are emotionally disturbed. They are physically disabled. They are 
medically fragile. They are terminally ill. It is those kids who have 
very few options.
  We have a chronic shortage of foster parents in this country and in 
this city. It should not be a surprise that kids are often placed in 
less than ``Leave it to Beaver'' families. Sometimes they are single. 
Sometimes they are stable, cohabiting parents. But once done, over time 
relationships form. And sometimes those kids want desperately to be 
adopted by the people whom they have come to call mom and dad.
  It is irrational. It does not fit all circumstances. The gentleman 
from Oklahoma is right. It may be irrational. Because it is about love. 
It is not about law.
  This should not be done by prohibiting the expenditure of funds in 
the District of Columbia budget. If we want to give guidelines to 
judges, let us do it the right way, in substantive law, and allow for 
these cases where a child desperately wants to be adopted by the people 
who he has come to identify as his parents.
  At different times in our lives, Mr. Chairman, we see different 
things in different stories. All of us remember Peter Pan, remember the 
lost boys who never found their parents.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has 7 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize that was a very 
moving statement. Had it been based on the facts that these kids could 
not be adopted, it would be relevant.
  But the fact is that this amendment would not prohibit one of the 
children that was just described by the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson) from being adopted. And to say that is being less than 
straightforward.
  This amendment says that even though two people might be living 
together who are unmarried, one of them can adopt. So it does not 
preclude the adoption of any group in any way from anytime adopting. It 
is just saying, if they are not married under the legal definition of 
``marriage,'' only one of them can have that child as their child.
  So one of the things we do real often is confuse the issue. What does 
this amendment really say? It does not say that a gay person cannot 
adopt a child. It does not say that anybody cannot adopt a child. What 
it says is, if a child is adopted in a relationship that is not 
recognized by law, that it can be only adopted by one of those members, 
not both, so that the child is not confused, so that the courts are not 
confused about what the legal representation of that adoption is.
  So let us be sure we are straight about what this amendment does. It 
is a great emotional word picture to think that a child who is dying or 
a child that is disabled cannot be adopted. But, in fact, it is not 
true under this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

[[Page 18650]]


  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the 
statement of the sponsor of the amendment; and there was great deal of 
emphasis on how, in the sponsor's opinion, this family structure with 
two unaffiliated folks would not be in the best interest of the child.
  Well, with all due deference, why should we care what we here think 
is in the best interest of the child? I mean, there are court 
proceedings that are going to have the opportunity to discern that. 
There are authorities in all the 50 States, including the District of 
Columbia, to make that determination. Why is our judgment sitting here 
so very important?
  The notion that somehow they would be better off with one parent, as 
the previous speaker seemed to imply, or in foster care, which is 
implicit in this entire debate, is utterly absurd.
  The point has also been made that these two people who are seeking 
the adoption are to the affiliated. They are affiliated. They are 
affiliated in their love and caring for this child. That affiliation 
should be the overarching one. That affiliation should be the one that 
is most important.
  Finally, this notion that there is nothing legally binding between 
these two folks, in fact, in the past in this very House there have 
been prohibitions put on the District of Columbia from establishing 
domestic partnership jurisdiction which would clarify this issue once 
and for all.
  In fact, this argument should be about what is best for the child, 
not what we here think are values and how we here define ``family.'' 
That is not the issue.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, once again I would just remind the gentleman that just 
spoke that the reason we are here is the courts have said that the 
Congress has not declared a clear intent and that is entirely what we 
are doing here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, count me into the crowd that says, I do not want to 
destroy the best interest of the child rule that courts use in 
determining what is the best place for the child to live.
  But here is the point I think we are missing: Parental rights attach 
in a couple ways. Biological parents have parental rights because they 
are the biological parents.
  Can they be terminated? Yes. A court can terminate the parental 
rights of a biological parent. But they have to have a court proceeding 
where they give notice to the parent and somebody comes and makes a 
case; and the judge, based on the best interest of the child, will make 
a legal determination that their parental rights are null and void.
  This is a dramatic thing in the law. That happens. But it happens 
very rarely. But there is room in the law to terminate parental rights. 
The best interest of the child is always a concern by the court. But 
there is a legal concept in our law that I hope we never destroy, and 
that is that biological parents cannot lose their children without a 
very good reason and we are not going to form families outside the law 
without a very good reason.
  A person who adopts a child that is a ward of the State becomes a 
legal parent by going through a process that is a pretty exhaustive 
review of that person's qualifications to see if the best interest of 
the child can be accommodated by placing that child, the ward of the 
State, into the hands of an individual.
  What my colleagues are trying to prevent here, and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is doing a good thing in my opinion, is not to 
take a couple, regardless of their gender, living outside of marriage 
and put them in the same spot or the same status under the law as a 
couple who are legally recognized as a married couple.
  That is a tremendously damaging concept I think to the legal 
structure around marriage. That does not mean single individuals cannot 
adopt children.
  What the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is saying is that 
couples that are not connected by the legal binds of marriage that has 
rules of the game and allow them separate property and assets, that we 
are not going to extend the adoption rules to these couples. And that 
makes a lot of sense.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Largent amendment.
  This legislation not only segregates nontraditional couples but also 
harms children who are in desperate need of loving families.
  There are approximately 3,100 children in the D.C. foster care 
system. We all know that children of all ages deserve love and the 
nurturing of an adoptive couple, ``couple'' preferably. The best 
interest of the child and parenting skills must be the sole factor for 
placement in safe and loving homes and not marital status or sexual 
orientation.
  Congress has traditionally left family decisions, law decisions, to 
the State and local levels. The odds for placing all 3,100 children 
currently in the D.C. foster care system in loving homes are slim. It 
would be a travesty to further jeopardize these odds and force children 
to languish in institutions, at great cost to taxpayers, when there are 
loving couples waiting to give them homes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to continue to leave family law 
decisions where they belong, at the local level. Do not lose sight of 
the thousands of children in foster care who would be deprived of a 
loving home. Vote ``no'' on the Largent amendment.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Last month, over 1,000 children in the District of Columbia's foster 
care system waited for someone, anyone, to take them home. Over 1,000 
children, children looking for a stable, secure home.
  The sponsor of the amendment during last year's floor debate 
indicated that he wanted to provide a sense of stability for children, 
and I believe that is true, that he wants that, and we all do. I think 
the sponsor has also spoken about the importance of the need for two-
parent families.
  So which is it? This amendment would allow single parent adoptions, 
but it disallows joint adoptions in the District of Columbia by persons 
who are not related by either blood or marriage.
  I do not quite understand. The sponsor of this amendment believes it 
is okay not to have two single people who want to be parents to adopt a 
child, but it is okay to have a single parent adopt a child. Is there 
not a bit of a double standard here?
  The gentleman from Oklahoma has spoken about not wanting to put 
children in an ambiguous situation, but what could be more ambiguous 
than keeping a child in foster care? What could be more ambiguous than 
keeping them in limbo, never allowing them to be adopted?
  We have these children in the District who are waiting to be adopted. 
I would love to have 1,000 lawfully-married-in-the-eyes-of-whatever-
religion couples in the District of Columbia step up and adopt these 
children. But that is not going to happen. I would love to have 1,000 
single people in the District of Columbia decide to become a parent and 
step up and adopt these children. But that is not going to happen, 
either.
  This amendment would limit the options for adoption to those two 
scenarios. There are 1,000 children in the District waiting to be 
adopted, that are looking for caring, loving families. We should not 
adopt this amendment, we should reject it and allow them to have the 
option of being adopted.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

[[Page 18651]]


  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to clarify. The courts do not need this amendment. Gay 
couples adopt in the District of Columbia and that is not a matter 
where there is now need for clarification from Congress or anybody 
else. There is no chance that unsuitable parents can adopt in the 
District because the courts strictly regulate these adoptions.
  This is a gay-bashing amendment. Yet everybody knows that gays can 
only get to adopt, under court proceedings, children that nobody else 
will adopt, the disabled children, the older children.
  There are practical reasons why this is an important amendment. It 
guarantees that the child would have ongoing financial responsibility 
from both people; that the child's interest before doctors and 
hospitals and in day care programs would be protected; that in the 
event one parent died, the child could directly inherit; and that if a 
parent became ill or died, workmen's compensation and Social Security 
benefits could be offered.
  Who would want to deny these to a child because of some notion that 
the parents do not suit the Members here today? They suit this child. 
These children need loving parents. There are 3,000 of them. They are 
desperate for homes.
  Do not pass this tragic amendment.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Again I just want to remind the body that there is nothing in this 
amendment that precludes anybody, any individual or couple related by 
marriage or blood from adopting any children, and that in the history 
of the District of Columbia there has never been one case that has 
shown that a child has gone unadopted because they could not be given 
joint adoption to people that were unrelated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the time 
remaining on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Virginia has the right to close.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, for those Members who do not pay much 
attention to the local news, I can tell them that good news is coming 
out of Washington, D.C. A new mayor, a new government, a balanced 
budget. In fact, they gave away garbage cans last week to come clean up 
our city. So things are happening here.
  But what I am hearing from my colleagues is, ``Let's micromanage 
D.C., let's micromanage the way rules are promulgated.''
  I would just ask my colleagues, when we had the debate of .08, 
Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, we all said, ``No, it's a States rights 
issue. Let them deal with it.''
  When it came to setting speed limits on interstate highways and on 
local roads, we said, ``It's a State or local issue. Let them deal with 
it.''
  But here we are saying, ``Well, maybe we'll get involved in a little 
or a few items that have particular resonance with our 
constituencies.''
  Mr. Chairman, there is no perfect world out there. But for my 
colleagues who are pro-life, more people will be brought into this 
world when there are less abortions, and with that will come a 
perplexing situation of how do we care for these kids and how do we 
find enough homes for them?
  Whether it is needle exchange or anything else, let us let local 
government decide. Let us let them be armed with information, 
statistics and data to decide what is the best policy for their 
community.
  Leave D.C. alone, avoid these amendments, and let us pass the base 
bill.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to close on this debate and just answer a few of 
the comments that have been made about the amendment once again.
  First, I want to say, in response to my colleague from Florida's 
statement just a moment ago, we are here explicitly because a judge in 
the District of Columbia, an appeals judge, said, ``I need to know what 
Congress means in this area. I don't know. I don't understand. Their 
intent is unclear.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is why we are here today, to state clearly what 
our intention is on the issue of joint adoption being granted to people 
that are unrelated. That is exactly what this amendment does and 
nothing more.
  I would also like to remind my friends and colleagues in the House 
that this amendment would not preclude a single adoption by a single 
child in the District of Columbia. In fact, it may even promote more 
adoptions as a result, because now as opposed to adopting as a joint 
custody by unrelated people, you have two individuals that can adopt 
individually. You can still do that. That is fine. We are not making 
any comments about that at all. What we are trying to do is prevent 
children who are already coming out of a confused background and 
beginning in their life from being thrown into an ambiguous and 
amorphous and confused situation by throwing them to a couple that are 
unrelated, that have no contract between them, and saying, ``You both 
get joint custody.'' That is wrong and we should not be doing it 
because it clearly is not in the best interest of the child and it 
definitely is not in the best interest of preserving of what it means 
to be married in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to finish this debate by commending, first of 
all, the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia 
because for the first time, and this is really important, for the first 
time in the D.C. appropriations bill, he has provided $8.5 million in 
this bill to promote adoption in the District of Columbia, and he 
should be commended for that because it is the right thing to do.
  The latest information I got shows that there are about 3,500 
children in the District of Columbia waiting to be adopted. This $8.5 
million will go a long way in helping provide for more children to be 
adopted as a result of this bill being passed and put in safe 
environments as a result of the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we also want the $8.5 million 
for adoption funds used most effectively.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of safe and secure 
adoptions for the children of the District of Columbia, I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the Largent amendment.
  We in Congress do not have any duty more important that protecting 
the welfare of children. Why, then, would we deny young people in the 
District of Columbia the right to have two legal guardians instead of 
one?
  There are 3,100 children in the District foster care system, and over 
1,000 of them are ready to be adopted. Each of them needs a loving and 
stable home. This amendment would promote adoptions that are less 
stable and secure by outlawing joint adoptions by individuals not 
related by blood or marriage.
  The sponsor has made it clear that his amendment does not prohibit 
adoptions by gays or lesbians. Of course it should not. According to 
the American psychological association, studies comparing children 
raised by non-gay and gay parents do not identify developmental 
differences between these two groups of children.
  But since the amendment do not prohibit these adoptions, the logic of 
the proposals is difficult to grasp. If gay or lesbian couples are 
going to be adopting children, shouldn't we want those adoptions to be 
as stable and secure as possible? What purpose do we serve by making 
these adoptions more precarious?
  What is really at play here is a lack of comfort with fully affirming 
lesbian and gay adoptions and lesbian and gay families. And what is sad 
is that some members of Congress would ignore the scientific evidence 
and allow their own lack of comfort to stand in the way of secure 
family placement of children.
  I ask you--in light of the evidence and the overwhelming need, do we 
have a right to stand in the way of making adoption placements as 
stable and secure as possible? Are

[[Page 18652]]

we acting on behalf of children, or our own prejudices?
  Both the child Welfare League of America and the Children's Defense 
Fund oppose this dangerous amendment because they recognize that 
children in the District deserve the most stable homes we can find for 
them. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Largent amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I rise in opposition to the Largent amendment which prohibits D.C. 
from using funds for joint adoption by people unrelated by blood or 
marriage.
  I cannot construct or conjure up a legitimate reason for this 
amendment.
  Under the amendment, two sisters, obviously related by blood, would 
have a right to jointly adopt, but two women unrelated by blood would 
be precluded from jointly adopting that child regardless of the 
relative capacity of those two families to provide a stable loving home 
for the child.
  Under the amendment, a married couple has the legal right to jointly 
adopt. But a common-law couple who have been together for 20 years, 
have children of their own and, by every proven measure, have love to 
give another child or even siblings orphaned by tragedy or accident, 
are prohibited from joint adoption.
  It is capricious to argue that two parents provide stability, legal 
responsibility and continuity to an adopted child, and then 
deliberately deny the same child the benefit of stability, legal 
responsibility and continuity by denying joint adoption into the 
common-law couple's family.
  Three thousand children are presently in foster care, waiting and 
hoping to be adopted and have parents. One thousand of them are deemed 
``ready for adoption.''
  The underlying bill provides $8.5 million to promote adoption. We 
should not at the same time constrain the options for these children to 
find loving homes by attaching this mean-spirited amendment to the 
bill.
  In my view, this amendment is without legitimate purpose and should 
be rejected.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 
to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear: If this amendment becomes 
law, children who are being raised by unmarried couples will still have 
two parents. They will still receive love, protection and understanding 
from both parents. And thankfully this amendment cannot stop that.
  But what the Largent amendment will do is end up not harming the 
parents but the children, by not allowing two legal parents to care for 
the child. There are so many reasons for a child to have a legal 
relationship with two parents. Legal rights, obligations and 
responsibilities flow from the recognition of parenthood. Some of them 
include the guarantee that both parents continue to have an ongoing 
financial relationship to the child. It assures legal access to and 
support from both parents in the event of a separation. It allows both 
parents to obtain health care and other employment-related benefits for 
the child which is especially important if one parent stays at home to 
raise the child. It protects the child in the event that one parent 
were to die without a will.
  These are vital, vital legal responsibilities. This amendment would 
destabilize and on occasion rip families apart.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Largent amendment.
  Let me be clear: if this amendment becomes law, children who are 
raised by unmarried couples will still have two parents. They will 
still receive love, protection and understanding from both parents, and 
thankfully this amendment cannot stop that.
  But what the Largent amendment will do is end up harming not the 
parents, but the children, by not allowing two legal parents to care 
for the child. There are so many reasons for a child to have a legal 
relationship with two parents. Let me list just some of the benefits to 
children to have two legally recognized parents:
  It guarantees that both parents continue to have ongoing financial 
responsibility for the child;
  It assures legal access to and support from both parents in the event 
of a separation;
  It allows' both parents to obtain health and other employment-related 
benefits for the child, which is especially important if one parent 
does not work;
  It protects the child in the event that one parent were to die 
without a will (the child would be entitled to inherit under the laws 
of intestate succession;)
  It allows the children to inherit from the parent's relatives, 
without costly legal battles;
  It allows the child to be eligible for benefits such as a worker's 
compensation or Social Security upon the parents unemployment, 
disability, or death;
  It allows a parent presumptive guardianship of the child if the other 
parent dies, thus keeping the family unit intact. Otherwise, the child 
could potentially lose both parents, and may be forced to live in 
foster care.
  One such tragedy occurred here in the District of Columbia and were 
it not for the courts here, recognizing the best interests of children, 
the children would have not have only lost one parent to a tragic death 
* * * they would have lost a second to a travesty of justice.
  If Congress truly cares about kids we should be acting in their best 
interests. That a member of this body would offer an amendment that 
will result in destabilizing families, on occasion ripping families 
apart, is wrong.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Largent 
Amendment to the D.C. Appropriations Bill. This legislation would 
prevent joint adoptions by individuals who are not related by blood and 
marriage. In effect, this amendment, under the guise of ensuring the 
security of children, would prevent otherwise qualified couples from 
adopting the tens of thousands in need of adoption.
  We are all aware that this amendment would prevent gay and lesbian 
couples from adopting children. I find it hard to believe that there 
are still Members of this Congress who can believe that sexual 
orientation has a direct effect on a person's ability to raise a child. 
The American Psychological Association has conclusively decided that 
there is no scientific data which indicates that gay and lesbian adults 
are not fit parents. Research by the APA has also determined that 
having a homosexual parent has no effect on a child's intelligence, 
psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, 
development of sex-role identity and development of sexual orientation. 
To maintain assumptions otherwise is unfair, and scientifically 
unfounded.
  It is my belief, and I'm sure that with a moment's consideration you 
will all agree, that the issue of adoption is best decided by parents 
and trained professionals on a case-by-case basis, based on the best 
interest of the child. We should not deprive children of families that 
are capable of raising them. How can you cheat a child out of a happy 
home and a caring family? How can you deny a person the right to share 
their love, their home, and the security they can offer a child?
  Raising a child is a very personal issue, one that deserves the time 
and consideration of individual case-by-case evaluations. Anything else 
is simply discriminatory. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Largest 
amendment, and let each child and each potential parent have the right 
to an individual evaluation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by Representative Largent to the District of Columbia 
Appropriations bill. This amendment would prohibit unmarried couples 
from jointly adopting children. I believe that local governments should 
be allowed to make the proper decision concerning adoptions, based on 
the universally accepted standards that regards the best interest of 
the child.
  Family law is not an area that Congress generally addresses because 
it is a local concern. State and local jurisdictions are better suited 
to address issues of domestic relations.
  There is no reason to deny potential parents the right to adopt a 
child based on their marital status. If we do not deny single people 
the right to adopt, then an unmarried couple should not face such a 
restriction.
  This amendment places the children that are currently waiting to be 
adopted at risk for remaining in the foster care system. That would not 
be in the best interest of any child. These children need consistent 
care and a safe home.
  This amendment suggests that an unmarried couple cannot provide a 
child with a proper environment to develop intellectually and socially. 
But this amendment only makes that suggestion of the residents of D.C.
  Currently, D.C. and 48 other states allow lesbian and gay couples to 
adopt when it is in the best interest of the child. It is clear that 
two loving parents, offer a child greater stability than one parent, 
yet we would make this

[[Page 18653]]

distinction if the couple is unmarried living in D.C.
  I oppose this amendment because I believe that the needs of children 
to be in a loving environment should not hinge on the marital status of 
the couple that wants to adopt. We should encourage adoption and we 
should allow local judges to make the decisions concerning these 
children. I urge my Colleagues to oppose this anti-family amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Largent) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


             Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Barr of Georgia

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

       Amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 106-263 offered by 
     Mr. Barr of Georgia:
       Page 65, insert after line 24 the following new section:
       Sec. 167. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to 
     legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the 
     possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance 
     under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any 
     tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that some folks will not listen to this, but 
right off the bat, let me implore those who will be considering and 
voting on this amendment to understand as much what it does not do as 
what it does.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
publication of the ballot results of the marijuana initiative held in 
the District of Columbia last year. The current prohibition on taking 
steps to count and report the results of that ballot extend only 
through the end of this fiscal year. The amendment that I propose here 
has nothing to do with the counting of that ballot.
  It has everything to do with continuing to say to the people of this 
country that insofar as the Federal Government has concern and 
jurisdiction over drug usage, that no moneys contained in this act 
shall be used for the purpose of legalizing or reducing the penalties 
for any schedule I controlled substance including, but not limited to, 
marijuana.
  If, in fact, the residents of D.C. have voted last year to legalize 
marijuana under the so-called medicinal use purpose, then this 
amendment today, if it is included in this appropriations bill, will 
prohibit further steps from being taken to implement that initiative. 
Without this amendment, if in fact the residents of the District of 
Columbia have voted in favor of marijuana legalization, without this 
amendment it will go into effect.

                              {time}  1400

  That is what this amendment addresses, that is all that it addresses, 
is further steps, any further steps towards the legalization of 
marijuana or other drugs under controlled substances, schedule 1, in 
the District of Columbia.
  Now I also have and I am sure the folks on the other side have a 
letter from the Office of the Corporation Counsel for the District of 
Columbia worrying terribly that the Barr amendment today would prohibit 
the counting of the ballots of last year's drug initiative. Let me 
assure the Corporation Counsel that this is not the case.
  I have also spoken with the subcommittee chair. He understands that 
this is not the case and has indicated, if it remains a problem for 
those on the other side who are not going to listen to this debate, 
then we will include language, seek to include language, in the 
conference report.
  Now that the red herring that the Barr amendment we are discussing 
today would somehow prohibit the counting and the reporting of the 
ballots from last year's marijuana initiative, let me reiterate what 
this amendment does and why it is so essential. It is essential because 
it will stop further steps from being taken pursuant to last year's 
initiative or any other from legalizing or reducing the penalties for 
marijuana or other schedule 1 controlled substances. It will not 
prevent after the commencement of the next fiscal year on October 1 the 
counting and reporting of any ballot previously taken.

   Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998


                           summary statement

       This initiative changes the laws of the District of 
     Columbia to: Restore the right of seriously ill individuals 
     to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when 
     recommended by a licensed physician to aid in the treatment 
     of HIV/AIDs, glaucoma, muscle spasm cancer, or other serious 
     or chronic illnesses for which marijuana has demonstrated 
     utility; protect seriously ill Washingtonians, their licensed 
     physicians and caregivers from criminal prosecution or 
     sanction; legalize--for medical purposes only--the 
     possession, use, cultivation, and distribution of marijuana 
     in the District of Columbia, and maintain the prohibition and 
     criminal sanctions against the use of marijuana for any 
     nonmedical purpose.


                                  test

       Be it enacted by the Electors of the District Of Columbia. 
     That this act may be cited as the ``Protecting Medical 
     patients and Providers from marijuana Prosecution Initiative 
     of 1998''.
       Sec. 2. All seriously ill individuals have the right to 
     obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when a licensed 
     physician has found the use of marijuana to be medically 
     necessary and has recommended the use of marijuana for the 
     treatment (or to mitigate the side effects of other 
     treatments such as chemotherapy, including the use of AZ1, 
     protease inhibitors, etc., radiotherapy. etc.) or diseases 
     and conditions associated with [HIV and AIDS;, glaucoma, 
     muscle spasm, cancer and other serious or chronic illnesses 
     for which the recommending physician reasonably believes that 
     marijuana has demonstrated utility.
       Sec. 3. Medical patients who use, and their primary 
     caregivers who obtain for such patients, marijuana for 
     medical purposes upon the recommendation of a licensed 
     physician do not violate the District of Columbia Uniform 
     Controlled Substances Act of 1981, effective August 5, 1981 
     (D.C. Law 4-29; D.C. Code Sec. 33 501 et seq.) (controlled 
     Substances Act''), as amended and in so far as they comply 
     with this act, are not subject to criminal prosecution or 
     sanction.
       Sec. 4. (a) Use of marijuana under the authority of this 
     act shall not be a defense to any crime of violence, the 
     crime of operating a motor vehicle while unpaired or 
     intoxicated, or a crime involving danger to another person or 
     to the public, nor shall such use negate the mens rea for any 
     offense.
       (b) Whoever distributes marijuana cultivated, distributed 
     or intended to be distributed or used pursuant to this act to 
     any person not entitled to possess or distribute marijuana 
     under this act shall be guilty of crime and subject to the 
     penalty set forth in section 401 (a)(2)(D) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (D.C. Code Sec. 33-541(a)(2)(0)).
       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other law, no physician shall 
     be punished, or denied any right, privilege or registration 
     for recommending, while acting in the course of his or her 
     professional practice, the use of marijuana for medical 
     purposes. In any proceeding in which rights or defenses 
     created by this act are asserted a physician called as a 
     witness shall be permitted to testify before a judge, in 
     camera, Such testimony, when introduced in a public 
     proceeding, if the physician witness so requests, shall have 
     redacted the name of the physician and the court shall 
     maintain the name and identifying characteristics of the 
     physician under seal.
       Sec. 6. (a) Any District law prohibiting the possession of 
     marijuana or cultivation of marijuana shall not apply to a 
     medical patient, or to a medical patient's primary 
     caregivers, when a medical patient or primary caregiver 
     possesses or cultivates marijuana for the medical purposes of 
     the patient upon the written or oral recommendation of a 
     licensed physician. The exemption for cultivation shall apply 
     only to marijuana specifically grown to provide a medical 
     supply for a patient, and not to any marijuana grown for any 
     other purpose. In determining a quantity of marijuana that 
     constitutes a medical supply, this act shall be interpreted

[[Page 18654]]

     to assure that any medical patient protected by the act shall 
     have access to a sufficient quantity of marijuana to assure 
     that they can maintain their medical supply without any 
     interruption in their treatment or depletion of their medical 
     supply of marijuana.
       (b) The prohibition in the Controlled Substances Act 
     against the manufacture, distribution, cultivation, or 
     possession with intent to manufacture, distribute, or 
     cultivate, or against possession, of marijuana shall not 
     apply to a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to this 
     act.
       Sec. 7. A medical patient may designate or appoint a 
     licensed health care practitioner, parent, sibling, spouse, 
     child or other close relative, domestic partner, case 
     manager/worker, or best friend to serve as a primary 
     caregiver for the purposes of the act. A designation under 
     this act need not be in writing; however, any written 
     designation or appointment shall be prima facie evidence that 
     a person has been so designated. A patient may designate not 
     more than four persons at any one time to serve as a primary 
     caregiver for the purposes of this act. [:or the purposes of 
     this subsection, the term ``best friend means a close Friend, 
     who is feeding, nursing, bathing, or otherwise caring for the 
     medical patient while the medical patient is in a weakened 
     condition.
       Sec. 8. Residents of the District of Columbia may organize 
     and operate not-for-profit corporations for the purpose of 
     cultivating, purchasing, and distributing marijuana 
     exclusively for the medical use of medical patients who are 
     authorized by this act to obtain and use marijuana for 
     medical purposes. Such corporations shall comply with the 
     district's nonprofit corporation laws. Fees and licenses 
     shall be collected by the Department of Consumer and 
     regulatory Affairs (``DCRA'') in the same manner as other 
     not-for-profit corporations operating in the District of 
     Columbia. The Director of DCRA shall issue such corporations 
     exemptions from the sales tax, use tax, income tax and other 
     taxes of the District of Columbia in the same manner as other 
     nonprofit corporations.
       Sec. 9. The exemption from prosecution for distribution of 
     marijuana under this act shall not apply to the distribution 
     of marijuana to any person under 18 years of age unless that 
     person is an emancipated minor, or a parent or legal guardian 
     of the minor has signed a written statement that such parent 
     or legal guardian understands: (i) the medical condition of 
     the minor, (ii) the potential benefits and the potential 
     advese effects of the use of marijuana generally and in the 
     case of the minor, and (iii) consents to the use of marijuana 
     for the treatment of the minor's medical condition. Violation 
     of this section shall be subject to the penalties of the 
     Controlled Substances Act.
       Sec. 10. (a) The Director of the Department of Health of 
     the District of Columbia must develop a plan and submit it, 
     within 90 days of the approval of this act to the Council of 
     the District of Columbia to provide for the safe and 
     affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients enrolled 
     in Medicaid or a Ryan White CARE Act funded program who are 
     in medical need, who desire to add marijuana to their health 
     care regimen and whose licensed physician reasonably believes 
     that marijuana would be beneficial to their patient.
       (b) Within 30 days of the certification of the passage of 
     this act by the people of the District of Columbia, the Mayor 
     of the District of Columbia shall deliver a copy of this act 
     to the President and the Congress to express the sense of the 
     people of the District of Columbia that the Federal 
     government must develop a system to distribute marijuana to 
     patients who need it for medical purposes.
       Sec. 11. If any provision of this measusre or the 
     application thereof to my person or circumstance is held 
     invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or 
     applications of the measure which can be given effect without 
     the invalid provision or application, and to this end the 
     provisions of this measure are severable.
       Sec. 12. This act shall take effect after a 30 day period 
     of Congressional review as provided in section 602(c)(1) of 
     the District of Columbia Self-government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; 
     D.C. Code Sec. 1-233(c)(1)).

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and claim 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we oppose this amendment. We certainly oppose the use 
of drugs that would contribute to a drug culture, that would contribute 
to the debilitation of any individual human being, but that is not the 
issue we are arguing. The issue we began arguing is whether the 
District of Columbia can count the ballots in a referenda that inquired 
as to whether people would support the ability of doctors to prescribe 
marijuana for their patients who are terminally ill, generally of AIDS, 
so as to relieve their suffering. Again, my colleagues would think that 
that should be a professional decision made by professional medical 
practitioners.
  Now up until now, Mr. Barr's intent was to prevent the votes being 
totaled. That prevented about $1.30 apparently from being spent to 
itemize the ballots. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) now goes 
beyond that to say that under any circumstances regardless of what the 
outcome of that referendum might be that the citizens of the District 
of Columbia cannot have their doctor prescribe for patients who are 
suffering to be able to use marijuana to relieve their suffering.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some ramifications of this amendment that go 
beyond what some might consider to be a relatively heartless attempt on 
the part of the proponent of the amendment. For example, prohibiting 
the reduction of penalties associated with the possession, use or 
distribution of marijuana or any schedule 1 substance undermines the 
efforts of law enforcement, the courts, and the correctional system to 
enter into plea bargains with criminal defendants in their war against 
illegal drugs. It could eliminate the option of reducing sentences of 
prisoners as an incentive to encourage good behavior.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) I know was an assistant U.S. 
Attorney. He understands how important it is to be able to plea 
bargain, to be able to have flexibility, to look for the broader 
objective of reducing drug use or even to use individuals who are 
caught to be able to turn in the people who are truly distributing 
drugs. There are a lot of ramifications of this amendment, all of them 
negative. This should be defeated.
  Now at this point I am going to reserve the balance of our time, so a 
number of subsequent speakers can list a number of reasons for our 
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the sky is not falling, and the sky will not fall if 
this amendment is adopted; let me assure my colleagues on the other 
side.
  The extent to which the other side and the key proponent who just 
spoke is opposed to this amendment either blinds his judgment or his 
ability to fairly read within the four corners of the amendment, or he 
is simply engaging in an argument that he knows not to be an accurate 
one, there is nothing in this language that either expressly or by the 
wildest interpretation of its language would reduce in any way, shape 
or form the ability of any prosecutor to plea bargain. This amendment 
is by its four corners and by any reasonable interpretation designed 
simply to stop efforts to legalize or reduce penalties for the 
possession or use of controlled substances. It has nothing to do with 
plea bargaining which does not reduce penalties for, it simply disposes 
of a particular case.
  I look forward to the other statements that the other side will put 
forward in opposition to simply standing for the proposition that we do 
not want and this body should not condone efforts to legalize drug 
usage in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr) for yielding this time to me.
  This is not about health care. The word medicinal in front of this is 
so disgusting. Marinol, a subpart of marijuana, can be used to treat, 
and it is legal, and if the only way you can do it is through smoke 
marijuana, one can go to HHS, and there is an appeal process for those 
rare cases.
  This is a national drug battle being funded by a few individuals, and 
it is a back-door way to legalize marijuana. Every year, we go through 
a drug certification process for other nations. When I go down to 
Columbia or to Mexico or to Peru and Bolivia and other countries, they 
always say, ``What's your standard in the United States?'' If

[[Page 18655]]

in our Nation's capital, we are going to relax our drug laws and allow 
the back-door legalization of marijuana in our Nation's capital, a 
violation of federal law, then we should not be here, we should not be 
doing the drug surveys.
  We ought to just acknowledge that we are going to allow the 
toleration of marijuana because that is, in fact, where we are headed 
here, that this is like saying that a subcomponent of arsenic can be 
helpful to somebody, therefore, we are going to encourage the use of 
arsenic or some other substance that can be fatal, that marijuana is 
the gateway drug along with tobacco and alcohol to the heroin, to the 
crack and in and of itself, as we have heard in numerous drug hearings, 
from abused mothers.
  We had an abused mother in Arizona who told how our husband got on 
marijuana, mixed it with alcohol, was beating her, and she was in 
constant fear of her life. It is not just harder drugs, it is also the 
marijuana. We had multiple wrecks in the last year in my district where 
students who were on marijuana or those older than students were on 
marijuana who had automobile wrecks that terminated the lives of other 
people.
  We cannot in our Nation's capital where the Constitution specifically 
says to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over 
such district especially when it is a national law. This law applies to 
every State. The States that went through these referendums are, in 
fact, being prosecuted in courts to resolve this. There is absolutely 
no reason to implement such a law in District of Columbia. It would be 
an abomination to our country.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr) that the source of my comments about limiting the ability of 
legal professionals to come up with plea bargains and to otherwise 
pursue justice in the court system came from the United States Justice 
Department and from the offender supervision division of the District 
of Columbia. So it was not my personal opinion, it was a professional 
opinion that this could do harm to their ability to reduce drug 
addiction and to go after drug criminals.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first I want to welcome the 
gentleman from Georgia's belated conversion to democracy. I gather he 
is no longer insisting on the amendment he successfully authored last 
year to prevent the counting of votes, which I must say seems to me the 
least intellectually valid enactment of the United States Congress in 
its history. He has backed away from that. But what he now has is a 
rather poorly drafted amendment that is very different than the one its 
proponents defend.
  In the first place, it does not just say law, it says law, rule, or 
regulation. If there were to be a policy in the prosecutor's office 
governing plea bargaining in controlled substances cases and my 
colleague wanted to amend that rule by which he controlled the practice 
of plea bargaining, it might be effective, but all the more important 
is the other language. It does not just say to legalize it, it says 
otherwise reduce penalties.
  So do my colleagues know what would be illegal under this if it 
applies? Government Pataki of New York, the Governor of New York, has 
recently proposed, a good Republican, George Pataki, has just proposed 
to reduce some of the sentencing. They have mandatory minimums, and he 
said those are not working. If they were governed by this, it could not 
happen.
  Now are we going to tell the District of Columbia that they cannot in 
their policy experiment with a diversion program for first offenders, 
with reducing mandatories?
  This Congress passed a law in 1994 over the objections of many on 
that side, but it was passed by the Congress, which did away with 
mandatory minimums in some cases for some controlled substances. Had we 
been bound by this law, it could not have happened.
  This is an outrage.
  The debate about legalization and medical marijuana can move forward. 
I will note that this horrendous policy of supporting medical marijuana 
that is being decried over there has been supported by the electorates 
of many States, and I keep noting the extent to which the Republican 
party, at least as represented in the House, is falling out of love 
with the voters of America. Time and time again in public opinion polls 
or referenda the voters disappoint my friends over there.
  Then we heard from one gentleman about, well, we need to do 
prohibition. His argument was for prohibition of alcohol, not just 
marijuana, but this goes far beyond legalization. This says they cannot 
reduce penalties, they cannot reduce mandatory minimums, they cannot 
experiment with diversion programs. It ought to be rejected.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would remind my learned colleagues on the other side that the role 
of the U.S. attorney is governed very distinctly from the D.C. 
Appropriations Act. I would also remind my colleagues that the 
Department of Justice is funded in an entirely different appropriations 
bill. This amendment here has nothing whatsoever to do with the power 
of U.S. attorneys to continue to prosecute cases. The judges do 
continue to sentence under federal laws and the ability of Federal 
prosecutors in the District of Columbia to plea bargain.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I probably, in committee, surprised 
some of my liberal friends by supporting the counting of the ballots. 
To me, it violated the First Amendment rights of individuals who at 
least expressed their opinion. I also stated that I would do everything 
in my power to fight against legalization of marijuana.
  In California they had an initiative, and they have found such 
extreme abuse of using marijuana for medicinal purposes and medical 
because they could always find some doctor from the hippy generation of 
the 1960s or 1970s that would prescribe just to basically get around 
the law. They have had tremendous problems in California already with 
it, and I think it is wrong.
  I think the liberalization of family values, the liberalization of 
our traditions and our laws are part of the problems why we end up with 
Columbines and those kinds of things. I think to back off on marijuana 
and other drugs would do the same kind of thing, and I will fight 
tooth, hook, and nail against the legalization of marijuana, but not 
the right to express one's opinion on it. I think that part is wrong.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Let us face it. What is this amendment doing here?
  This amendment is inspired by a medical marijuana initiative many 
residents may have opposed, but the outcome is unknown because of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) last year. 
It is outrageous enough to overturn local legislation without the 
consent of the governed. Mr. Barr just cannot wait. He wants to strike 
down a local initiative before it is enacted and even without knowing 
that it will be enacted. Even if a medical marijuana initiative passes, 
it could not move forward without legislation by the city council.
  The poor wording of this amendment will lead to consequences that 
even the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) did not intend. The phrase: 
Otherwise reduce penalties associated with drug use is so overbroad it 
will produce challenges against what courts and prosecutors do every 
day. If we cannot otherwise reduce penalties, we may not be able to 
reduce drug sentences for routine matters like a defendant's 
cooperation with the prosecution or successful completion of drug 
rehabilitation.

[[Page 18656]]



                              {time}  1415

  I would never ask my colleagues to support permissive drug use, and 
our own constituents know us better than that.
  The full Committee on Appropriations eliminated this amendment 
because it recognized that democracy, not drugs, was the issue. Mr. 
Chairman, I ask my colleagues to respect that judgment. The gentleman 
from Georgia and any Member of this body can repair to their remedies 
after the legislation is enacted. We ask, for goodness sake, that you 
spare us something unprecedented, even for the District of Columbia, 
prior restraint on democracy.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The Chair 
would remind the Members that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to close; and the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his leadership 
on this bill, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) as well for 
his leadership in bringing the bill to the floor.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Barr amendment for the following 
reasons. The findings of scientific research, the will of the voters of 
the District of Columbia, and compassion for people with serious 
illnesses all argue against this amendment.
  In the spring of this year, the Institute of Medicine issued a report 
that had been commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy. The study found that marijuana is ``Potentially effective in 
treating pain, nausea and anorexia of AIDS-wasting and other 
symptoms,'' and it called for more research on the use of marijuana in 
medical treatment. That is the latest science.
  Finally, we must consider the need for people with cancer, AIDS, and 
other serious illnesses who want access to a drug which can help them 
deal with the symptoms of their illnesses. Of course, all of us in this 
body are opposed to illegal drug use, and those of us who are voting 
``no'' on this amendment are strongly opposed to illegal drugs. I hope 
there is no question about that. We are also against the use of Federal 
law to make criminals of terminally ill people who are trying to use a 
proven remedy to seek relief.
  The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Preventative 
Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association all 
support access to marijuana for medicinal purposes.
  Voters in my home State passed an initiative in November 1996 
authorizing seriously ill patients to take marijuana on the 
recommendation of a licensed physician. Proposition 215 has authorized 
as many as 11,000 Californians who suffer from AIDS and many other 
debilitating diseases with safe and legal access to a remedy that makes 
life a little more bearable.
  Thousands of constituents in my district struggling with AIDS and 
cancer will tell us that choosing the appropriate medical treatment 
should be a decision for public health officials, physicians and 
patients, not for the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Barr amendment.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, if anybody ever wondered what one big loophole looks 
like, this be it. This is a copy of the Legalization of Marijuana for 
Medical Treatment Initiative that is the subject matter of this debate. 
If one reads, and I do not know whether folks on the other side have 
actually read the D.C. Initiative, but if they do, they will find it is 
one massive loophole. It is not limited only to certain types of 
diseases, it applies to virtually anything. It is not limited simply to 
patients who say that marijuana or doctors who say that marijuana has a 
proven medical use. It is simply, does marijuana have a demonstrated 
utility, whatever in the heck that means.
  It also allows not only for the patient to have this marijuana, but 
for any friend of theirs who might have it to give to them.
  So it is just replete with loopholes. It does not even require a 
written prescription. It can simply be an oral recommendation of the 
doctor.
  This is bad legislation. If we do not stop it today, it will go into 
effect, and we would be telling the people of this country that drug 
usage is okay in our Nation's Capital. We should not do that. Support 
the Barr amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to argue to make any drugs legally 
available. But under some circumstances, we do make drugs legally 
available. Certainly, morphine is customarily used when people are 
suffering. I know I, myself, when my mother was dying and experiencing 
a great deal of pain, I had to inject morphine, simply to reduce the 
suffering. I never would have done that, but the doctors prescribed it.
  Basically, that is what we are suggesting here, that we defer to the 
judgment of medical professionals. If there is a way to relieve 
people's suffering, people that are experiencing terminal illness, we 
should allow this. This is a tough vote, but I do think the right vote 
is to vote ``no.'' Leave this to the medical community.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Barr 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Barr amendment to 
the FY 2000 District of Columbia appropriations bill. This amendment 
would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to legalize or reduce 
penalties for the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I 
substance, including marijuana, under the Controlled Substances Act.
  In recent years, the issue of promoting so called ``medicinal'' uses 
for marijuana has taken hold in several states. In 1996, both 
California and Arizona voters passed referendums, in defiance of 
federal law, which permitted the use of marijuana as a medical device, 
primarily pain relief.
  Mr. Chairman, the number of adolescents who have used marijuana has 
doubled since 1993. It has been well established that marijuana is a 
gateway drug, whose use often leads to more serious drug consumption, 
such as heroin and cocaine use. These trends need to be reversed.
  The proponents of a policy supporting the medicinal use of marijuana 
are simply using the issue as cover for the larger issue of drug 
legalization.
  We must not be seen as sending mixed and confusing messages on 
illicit drug use to our young people. Illicit drugs are simply wrong, 
our country knows all to well that drugs are destructive, dangerous and 
deadly, nothing more, nothing less.
  In their zeal to decriminalize the use of illicit substances, 
supporters of legalization fail to mention the consequences which would 
result from such a move.
  Drug use is destructive behavior with consequences affecting far more 
than the individual in question. To pretend otherwise is to deny 
reality and embrace a seductive illusion that only leads to despair and 
hopelessness.
  I urge my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today we are debating an amendment that has 
no business in this appropriations bill. the Barr amendment will 
continue the unprecedented assault on the democratic process. As many 
of my colleagues know, a provision that was inserted into last year's 
D.C. appropriations bill included a section that prohibited the 
District of Columbia from spending any funds to count and certify the 
results of a voter referendum, Measure 59, held last November. The 
voters cast their ballots on whether the local law should permit the 
medical use of marijuana. Those ballots sit uncounted and uncertified 
because the Barr amendment.
  The cost of the District using its own funds to count and certify the 
results is literally a few dollars, but the Barr amendment has forced 
the Federal Government to incur substantial litigation costs defending 
last year's decision against letting the voters be heard on a local 
issue. This is absurd and this amendment should be rejected on its 
face. Why are some in this Congress so intent on impeding the 
democratic process in the District of Columbia?
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar the government of the District 
from using any federal funds to assist any medical marijuana program. 
That is what this amendment is

[[Page 18657]]

about. In addition, because the amendment would bar the District from 
using local funds to ``enact or carry out any law, rule or regulation'' 
that reduces penalties for any Schedule I substance or THC derivative, 
this will threaten existing programs like the availability of Marinol, 
a THC derivative, which is used to treat patients suffering with HIV/
AIDS.
  Mr. Chairman, the citizens of the District have spoken and have 
decided that marijuana should be used for medicinal purposes. This is 
another attempt by the gentleman from Georgia to interfere with 
District citizens, who are, after all, only exercising one of the few 
democratic rights that Congress has allowed them--the right to vote on 
initiatives and referenda.
  Mr. Chairman, medical studies demonstrate that in some cases 
marijuana has proven effective in treating pain and discomfort for 
patients, especially those that are undergoing chemotherapy. The 
medical use of marijuana is a public health issue; it is not part of 
the war on drugs. Once again, marijuana has been proven to relieve the 
pain and suffering of seriously ill patients. It is unconscionable to 
deny an effective medication to those in need.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out for the record that former 
Speaker Gingrich and the distinguished chairman of our own Crime 
Subcommittee once agreed with medicinal use of marijuana. in 1981, 
Representative Newt Gingrich and Representative Bill McCollum, 
cosponsored H.R. 4498, a bill introduced by the late Congressman Stuart 
McKinney, that would have allowed the medicinal use of marijuana. In 
1985, Chairman mcCollum again cosponsored H.R. 2282, a bill 
reintroduced by Congresswoman McKinney, which would have allowed the 
medicinal use of marijuana. I, along with many others, would be very 
interested to learn why our colleagues changed their minds.
  Mr. Chairman, many states have held state referenda on the use of 
medical marijuana. Two states, California and Arizona, have 
successfully passed legislation to allow the prescribed use of 
marijuana for medicinal purposes. The voters of these states have 
spoken and in our democratic system they must be respected.
  Mr. Chairman, although the Congress exercises oversight over the 
District, we should not micromanage it. We should trust the citizens of 
the District and their elected officials to manage and implement 
policies that benefit the District and its residents.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, permitting the medical use of marijuana to 
alleviate the pain and suffering of people with seriously ill 
conditions does not send the wrong message to children or anyone else. 
It simply states that we are compassionate and intelligent enough to 
respect the rights of patients and the medical community to administer 
what is medically appropriate care. It is time for this Congress to 
acknowledge that a ban on the medicinal use of marijuana is 
scientifically, legally, and morally wrong.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by 
the gentleman from Georgia.
  The amendment seeks to nullify the results of a popular local 
initiative by congressional fiat. So much for ``federalism'' and 
``states' rights.'' So much for ``local self-determination.''
  And so much for common sense. But then, whenever marijuana is 
involved, some of our colleagues seem to take leave of their senses 
altogether.
  When the citizens of California and Arizona voted in 1996 to allow 
doctors to prescribe marijuana for medical purposes, this House 
responded with a resolution declaring that ``marijuana is a dangerous 
and addictive drug and should not be legalized for medicinal use.''
  Yet we all know that many narcotics--such as morphine and even 
cocaine--which are highly dangerous when used without proper medical 
supervision, are nonetheless approved for a range of medical uses.
  We do not deny narcotics to cancer patients because it could ``send a 
signal'' to others who might wish to use these drugs recreationally. 
Yet that is what this amendment would say with regard to marijuana. 
With all due respect, I do not believe that anyone who had watched an 
AIDS or cancer patient suffer uncontrollable nausea for hours at a time 
could make such an argument.
  Proponents of the amendment are quick to point out that the 
scientific community is divided over the medical benefits of marijuana. 
They are less quick to acknowledge that both the benefits and the 
dangers of a large number of medical substances are subject to 
scientific dispute.
  I submit that it is not the job of the Congress to resolve such 
disputes. We could argue all day about the science. But that is not our 
role.
  It is not our role to prohibit scientists from continuing to develop 
sound data regarding the safety and efficacy of marijuana--as they do 
with any other experimental treatment.
  And it is both foolish and inhumane for us to prevent licensed 
physicians and their patients from studying the growing literature, 
weighing the benefits and the risks, and deciding whether the use of 
such drugs is medically appropriate--especially when more conventional 
therapies have been found ineffective.
  If we are determined to override these local decisions, and to 
replace sound medical judgment with our own, let's at least not be 
hypocritical. Let's take morphine and cocaine off the market as well. 
Let's explain to the patients who depend on these drugs to control 
their pain that they will simply have to suffer so that we can send the 
``right signal'' about drug abuse. I'm sure they'll understand.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 65, insert after line 24 the following new section:
       Sec. 167. Nothing in this Act prohibits the Department of 
     Fire and Emergency Services of the District of Columbia from 
     using funds for automated external defibrillators.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or other 
audible conversation is in violation of the Rules of the House.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It 
states that nothing in this act prohibits the Department of Fire and 
Emergency Medical Services of the District of Columbia from using funds 
for automatic external defibrillators.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, seeks to highlight how invaluable AEDs 
are to use to save personal lives. This is endorsed by the American 
Heart Association, the American Red Cross, the American Association of 
Respiratory Care, the American College of Cardiology, the Citizen CPR 
Foundation, and the International Association of Firefighters. These 
are just a few people that support the idea of making AEDs available in 
Federal buildings.
  I want to make it clear to my colleagues that this amendment in no 
way seeks to dictate to the District of Columbia how they should spend 
their money.
  An AED of course is a device that is a little larger than a laptop 
computer. It automatically analyzes heart rhythms and delivers an 
electric current to the heart of a cardiac arrest victim. AED can 
restart a heart that has stopped beating.
  Passage of this amendment simply reaffirms that the District of 
Columbia should have access to the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art 
equipment. Like AEDs, they can restore a normal heart rhythm in persons 
suffering from sudden cardiac arrest.
  Mr. Chairman, frankly, it does not require a lot of training. Just 
turn it on and it tells someone what to do. It allows a great number of 
people to be able to respond to medical emergencies that require 
defibrillation. They are essential to strengthening this chain of 
survival for anybody that has a cardiac arrest.
  The four links to this process, of course, are dialing 911 as a first 
step, early resuscitation, and then defibrillation, and then, of 
course, early and advanced life support.
  While defibrillation is the most effective mechanism to revive a 
heart that has stopped, it is the least accessed tool we have 
available. So I think putting AEDs in Federal buildings is much like 
the argument for putting firefighting equipment in the buildings.
  Studies show that 250 lives can be saved each and every day from 
cardiac arrest by using the AED device. Those are the kinds of 
statistics that no one can argue with.

[[Page 18658]]

  No one knows when a sudden cardiac arrest might occur. According to a 
recent study, the top five sites where cardiac arrests do occur of 
course are at airports, county jails, shopping malls, sports stadiums, 
and of course golf courses. I believe we would all do ourselves a favor 
and great comfort in knowing that in any one of these Federal buildings 
or, for that matter, any District building, that we have in Washington, 
DC, that the most up-to-date equipment is available and that folks are 
now trained to use it to help all Americans.
  They are being produced today very inexpensively. They are easy to 
maintain, and so I think between those two things, the state of the art 
is bringing costs down for the AEDs and they afford a wider range of 
emergency capability for trained and equipped personnel.
  So I think with all of the tourists we have here in the District of 
Columbia each day, I think it is important that all of the Federal 
buildings, as well as the District of Columbia, have these available.
  Mr. Chairman, I have talked to the gentlewoman who represents D.C. on 
this matter, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) on a point of order.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Stearns) desires to withdraw his amendment by 
unanimous consent and that his language be included in the report in 
the bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I have worked out the 
language with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton), and as I understand, if she would confirm this, that she 
accepts the report language that I have, and then, by unanimous 
consent, I will withdrawal my amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection. We would 
defer to the judgment of the Chairman.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond, I want to thank the 
gentleman for working with me on an issue of mutual interest so that we 
did not have to go into statutory language or a point of order and yet 
could get the agreement of the District after a call to the police 
department on a matter that is of considerable importance. I appreciate 
the gentleman drawing it to my attention, and I appreciate the way in 
which the gentleman has worked with me collegially to get a 
satisfactory solution.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the compliment and I am 
always glad to work with the gentlewoman.
  The report language in a sense is that we should conduct a study 
about the need for placement of the automatic external defibrillators 
in the Federal buildings and District buildings, so I think it is a 
first step for this country to recognize that AEDs are an important 
survival technique, and we are taking that step this afternoon here on 
the House floor.
  I thank the chairman of the D.C. Committee on Appropriations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today as we consider the appropriations bill for the 
District of Columbia, I want to highlight a high-profile case of police 
incompetence that has grievously affected some of my constituents. Last 
year, a resident of Baytown, Texas, Ms. Chanda Smith was only 2 months 
away from graduating from the University of Maryland when the car she 
was traveling in was broadsided by another vehicle on a District 
street, ending her life. Deaf since the age of 2 from meningitis, 
Chanda was looking forward to her graduation which would have occurred 
in December.
  The suspect, who tried to flee the scene, was quickly apprehended by 
District police. However, in the first of many police department 
missteps, none of the attending officers called the police department's 
mobile crime personnel unit who routinely examines skid marks and 
patterns of debris and take photographs and measurements of fatal 
accident scenes. These mistakes, while serious, were a harbinger for an 
even more appalling series of events.
  The Smith case was assigned to Detective Milton James, whose handling 
of several other fatal crash scenes had been under review by the D.C. 
Police Department. When Detective James began his investigation into 
the Smith case, he failed to order a blood sample from the suspect and 
did not get a warrant to search the suspect's vehicle. After he allowed 
the car to be towed, the police property division inadvertently junked 
the vehicle which contained direct evidence that the car should not 
have been on the road that night due to poor brakes and substandard 
steering. Police investigators later determined that the D.C. 
Department of Motor Vehicles inspectors passed the vehicle just weeks 
before.

                              {time}  1430

  Following these grossly negligent actions and mismanagement, another 
investigator was assigned to the case and prosecutors assembled a grand 
jury in an attempt to obtain further evidence and information.
  In the weeks after the accident, Chanda's parents remained in close 
contact with the lead detective, who assured them that the suspect 
would be charged with vehicular homicide and that the case would be 
turned over to a grand jury. Like any parents in this situation, the 
Smiths assumed that the case would result in a clear-cut conviction. 
But without the car and the measurements, the accident was impossible 
to reconstruct.
  In its response to the lapses in the Smith case, the District's 
police actions were completely inadequate. The lead detective, who 
clearly failed to perform even the most basic functions of an accident 
investigator, was demoted and reassigned. His supervisors, who had 
allowed this detective to investigate the crash site, were reprimanded 
for their poor oversight of the detective.
  What came to light after this case is even more shocking, that the 
lead detective had performed so poorly that 14 of his cases had been 
reassigned to other detectives because of his ineptitude in 
investigating accident scenes. The District police had long known this 
detective was not carrying out the basic functions of an accident 
investigator, such as interviewing key witnesses, taking blood samples, 
photographing crime scenes, and preserving evidence.
  After learning of the Department's lapses in January 1999, Chanda's 
parents were contacted by an investigator with the U.S. Attorney's 
Office, who tried to salvage the case and bring some justice to the 
Smith family. The Smiths worked with an Assistant U.S. Attorney to 
reconstruct some of the evidence, including turning over detailed 
pictures of the car that the insurance company had taken following the 
accident.
  While a grand jury was convened, there have been no indictments and 
the case has now been closed. The Smith family, who have suffered 
through a terrible, wrenching tragedy, have been denied justice for 
their daughters's life. Due to the original handling of this case, 
these parents are left searching for answers that may never be 
resolved.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the tough job that the men and women of 
the D.C. Police Department have to do, and I believe that the vast 
majority do it well. But the incompetence in handling of the Smith case 
should not be tolerated.
  As we consider the funding levels for the District of Columbia for 
fiscal year 2000, I want to urge all of my colleagues and particularly 
the members of the committee to consider this case and the implications 
for our constituents who may be affected by the inaction and 
incompetence in this instance by the District Police Department.
  I also urge Police Chief Charles Ramsey, who has acted with 
compassion in his response to this matter, to take every action 
necessary to resolve this case. The job performance of the lead 
detective and the supervisors in

[[Page 18659]]

this case were completely unacceptable. Their lack of action has caused 
enormous grief for a family who may never achieve even a small measure 
of justice for the loss of their daughter. They clearly deserve better, 
and so do the residents of the District of Columbia and the citizens of 
the United States.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). A few minutes 
ago the Chair noted a disturbance in the gallery, in contravention of 
the law and rules of the House.
  The Sergeant at Arms removed those persons responsible for the 
disturbance and restored order to the gallery.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen), and although I have no personal familiarity with the 
circumstances he relates, I certainly share his concern about the 
proper enforcement of laws and the proper procedures being followed by 
the police within the District for the protection of the citizens, 
whether they reside here, visit here, or work here.
  I do want to point out to the gentleman that in the bill we have 
provided $1.2 million for the expenses of the Citizen Complaint Review 
Board, which is intended to deal with concerns about police procedure, 
whether they be activity or inactivity, actions or oversights.
  I would certainly encourage the persons involved in the incident that 
he mentioned to utilize the services of that board, which we have 
sought to fund, to assist the District in resolving what we know are 
some long-term accumulated problems regarding the police department 
that I know Chief Ramsey wants to aggressively correct.
  So I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I certainly hope that 
the Citizen Complaint Review Board will be of assistance to him.
  I also wanted to note, Mr. Chairman, on the Barr amendment, which was 
adopted by voice vote, there were a couple of concerns raised about 
whether there might be some unintended consequences. That is a 
conferencible item with the Senate, and we will certainly look at that 
to make sure that no unintended consequences occur. I know the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) feels the same way, and we will be 
looking at that in conference.
  I also wanted to state, Mr. Chairman, we will be having the vote 
shortly on the Norton amendment, which regards the ability to use 
public funds on the voting rights litigation that persons in the 
District have filed against the Federal Government.
  I expect, based upon past votes, that the House would reject that 
amendment and continue the prohibition, but I did want to note for the 
Record that I have initiated the conversation with the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran), the ranking member, about the possibility of addressing 
this in conference, where, rather than an outright prohibition, we 
might be able to make sure, of course, that nothing is reimbursed for 
past work, but that the District might consider having limited 
availability of local funds only for future litigation expenses in 
their discretion.
  I intend to address that with the conferees, and we will see if that 
might be the end result. Certainly, of course, the amendment remains 
before the House to work its will, as it has previously.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, although we have devoted time today to talking 
about different amendments that are being offered to the bill, I think 
it is important that we all understand that there are some very 
important initiatives in this piece of legislation: the drug testing 
and treatment for the 30,000 offenders who are widescale violating the 
conditions of their freedom, that we need to get either off the streets 
or off of drugs, this is a major initiative; the adoption initiative; 
the approval of the management reforms by the District; the charter 
school assistance and strengthening within the District; and certainly 
approving the District's tax cut, which they have taken as a bold step 
in further improving the economic status of the District and everybody 
who resides here.
  Regardless of the vote on the amendments, I certainly intend to 
support the work of this House on the final bill. Regardless of how 
other Members may vote on the different amendments, I do not believe 
that any of them should be used by anyone as a reason to oppose the 
final passage of this bill, which I think helps to open a very strong 
and good chapter in better relations between the Federal Government and 
D.C., and to making the District a safer, better place with better 
schools for people who live here and work here and visit here, to be a 
better Capitol for our Nation.
  I commend the work of the persons who have worked together on this 
bill, both within this House and within the District government.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the entire bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). I applaud him for doing a 
very fine job in chairing this subcommittee and putting together an 
appropriations bill that is worthy of this House. In the subcommittee 
and in the full committee, both Democrats and Republicans agreed this 
is a good bill. This is the bill that we want the President to sign.
  It is still a good bill as it stands, unamended. If, however, it is 
amended on the floor of this House by changing the language that was 
approved by the full committee that said that no Federal funds can be 
used for any needle exchange program in the District of Columbia, we 
will have to oppose this bill. We believe that the D.C. elected council 
and Mayor can determine how best to combat the drug epidemic in the 
District which, by many accounts, is the worst in the Nation, if that 
language in the bill is sustained, we would certainly want to support 
that.
  If this body agrees that there is no need for the language put in by 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) that would supersede the 
judgment of the domestic courts in this city with regard to who is 
eligible to adopt children, then we have a bill that is going to pass 
virtually unanimously.
  But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that there are two amendments here 
that, if they are approved by this House, are so egregious in terms of 
trampling the rights of the District of Columbia citizens, its elected 
representatives, and its court system that the White House has said it 
will veto this bill. Then we are right back at the starting point. All 
this excellent effort by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and 
his colleagues on the Republican side and all the bipartisan support on 
the Democratic side will have been for naught.
  That reason alone should be sufficient to vote down these amendments 
and vote up the appropriations bill before us, because these amendments 
do not belong in an appropriations bill. That is why we had the 
argument on the rule. We had to have a rule that waived the rules of 
this House, saying that despite the fact that they would be ruled out 
of order, we are going to rule them in order, allowing them to be added 
to the bill.
  Had we stuck with an open rule, we would not have had to deal with 
this. We would have had a pure bill, a pure appropriations bill. We 
would have bipartisan support for it and it would pass overwhelmingly 
in this House.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to reject these 
two amendments; to support the bill, if they are rejected, and to give 
the White House a bill that it can sign right away and at least take 
this issue off the table.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations staff, I want to thank my assistant on the D.C. 
appropriations bill, Tim Aiken, who was ably assisted by Anstice Brand. 
I want to thank Tom Forhan particularly as the lead minority staff 
person for D.C. appropriations.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.

[[Page 18660]]

Norton), who has been here throughout the entire bill, who has done an 
excellent job of representing her constituents. That is really what 
this is all about. We really would like to defer to her constituents, 
who have the right to elect their own representatives, and would seem 
to have the right to spend their own money.
  We talk a lot about Federalism, we talk a lot about devolvement to 
States and localities. This is a good opportunity to show that our 
money is where our mouth is; that we believe in our rhetoric, we 
believe in the principle of self-representation, we believe that this 
Congress should not be overriding the normal rules of the House, 
imposing restrictions on the use of local and private funds within the 
District, imposing restrictions upon the prerogatives of the domestic 
courts in the District of Columbia.
  That principle will be sustained if we defeat the two amendments and 
enable all the Members of this House to support the D.C. appropriations 
bill, and enable the White House to sign it.
  Mr. Chairman, as I say, I urge a no vote on the amendments. If they 
are defeated, then we could urge a yes vote on the underlying bill.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the ranking 
member.
  One thing I think we need to make sure is mentioned is the D.C. 
tuition aid grant program, $17 million that we fund in this bill to 
enable young people in the District to achieve a college education. A 
vote against the bill, of course, would be a vote against that, as well 
as the other things, such as the drug treatment programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I would submit, frankly, that when we have a bill that 
is funding $25 million for drug testing and treatment, and a bill that 
is funding $8.5 million to encourage adoption, it is not unreasonable 
to expect that we do not want mixed messages by saying, well, let us 
have a needle exchange program that could interfere with that, or let 
us not make sure that adopting parents are related by blood or 
marriage.
  I doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the President would be so extreme as to 
veto this excellent bill because he did not like a couple of those 
provisions, especially seeing that he signed one into law last year.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
strike the requisite number or words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had understood it was protocol 
for the chairman to have the last word. Now, if the gentleman from 
Virginia insists upon having the last word, certainly I will not 
interfere with his desire to do so.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma I will speak and then yield to him to have the last word.
  Mr. ISTOOK. That is fine.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that, first of 
all, I neglected particularly to thank Mr. Americo ``Migo'' Miconi who 
was just superb on this bill. When I was thanking everybody, it was not 
sufficient to thank the members of the Committee on Appropriations 
staff without mentioning him particularly, specifically. He has some 
excellent people working with him as well, and we appreciate their fine 
work.
  Again, not only did we not mention the $17 million for the in-State 
tuition program, terrific idea, the $8.5 million for adoptions, the 
money for charter school, the money for offender supervision, I could 
go on and on and on, great things, plus supporting the consensus 
budget.
  That is why we particularly hope that these two amendments can be 
defeated and we can support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman 
Istook) to conclude.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments except my word 
of appreciation for the ranking member, the great people, Mr. Miconi, 
Mr. Albaugh, Mr. Monteiro, all the people who have worked on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: Amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-263 
offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), Amendment No. 2 
printed in the Congressional Record offered by the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 106-263 offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 amendment no. 1 offered by mr. tiahrt

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 106-263, offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 187, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 344]

                               AYES--241

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin

[[Page 18661]]


     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Skelton
     Sununu

                              {time}  1507

  Mr. TIERNEY and Mr. STUPAK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DOOLITTLE, DICKEY, VISCLOSKY, GEORGE MILLER of California, 
BARTLETT of Maryland, and WISE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each additional 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Norton

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 2 printed in the Congressional Record offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 214, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 345]

                               AYES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--214

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 18662]]



                             NOT VOTING--5

     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Skelton
     Sununu

                              {time}  1518

  Messrs. PACKARD, SOUDER, and COBURN changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. SWEENEY, GORDON, JOHN, and McINTYRE changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Largent

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 106-263 offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 215, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 346]

                               AYES--213

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Skelton
     Sununu

                              {time}  1526

  Mr. WISE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SWEENEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hefley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2587) 
making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia 
and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of 
said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 260, he reported the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 333, 
nays 92, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 347]

                               YEAS--333

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal

[[Page 18663]]


     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--92

     Archer
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Blagojevich
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Everett
     Filner
     Fossella
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Green (TX)
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Obey
     Olver
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Riley
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Waters
     Watkins

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Ballenger
     Clay
     Dreier
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Jones (OH)
     McDermott
     Peterson (PA)
     Skelton

                              {time}  1545

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________