[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 19233-19234]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2587, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table 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 a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, we 
have no objection to this motion. We do want to use this opportunity, 
though, to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and 
congratulate him for the 333 to 92 vote on final passage of the D.C. 
appropriations bill.
  I do not know that anybody in this body is aware of this, but over 
the past 20 years, no D.C. appropriations bill has ever passed the 
House of Representatives with a higher margin of votes. This strong 
bipartisan support reflects a vote of confidence on a number of 
positive developments in the district. It is important to understand 
that that was unprecedented, virtually unprecedented to get that kind 
of margin of support for a D.C. appropriations bill.
  It is really for three reasons, a strong fiscal picture that includes 
a budget surplus that will make it possible for the first time in a 
decade to cut any taxes for D.C. businesses and residents. We have got 
a new mayor and city council who are committed to revitalizing the 
district, its businesses, its infrastructure and schools, and its 
public services.
  Thirdly, we have a new chairman who has made every effort to 
familiarize himself with the affairs of the District and played a fair 
and an even hand with District officials, with the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and with myself.
  I believe the strong bipartisan support, however, also reflects 
confidence that at least two of the riders that both the administration 
and many in Congress have objected to can be modified in conference.
  I am speaking of the commitment of the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Chairman Istook) to revisit provisions restricting the District from 
using even its own funds to pursue legal redress in Federal court on 
its voting rights claim.

                              {time}  1730

  The amendment of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) to allow local funds to be used on this lawsuit lost on a tie 
vote, and the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee has given us 
a commitment that he will try to fix that because it was so close in 
the House.
  The second issue is the needle exchange program. As my colleagues 
know, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) 
prohibits the use of Federal or local funds for any needle exchange 
program in the District. The amendment goes even further to prevent any 
private organization or individual from offering a needle exchange 
program if they are in receipt of other Federal funds.
  This amendment ties the hands of the District to respond to a public 
health crisis. D.C. has the highest rate of HIV infection in the United 
States, and intravenous drug use is the second leading cause. It is the 
most likely cause that we can reduce with action that we might take, or 
at least enabling the District to take such action.
  It is wrong that the District suffers from the most restrictive 
language of any other city in the country, hampering its ability to 
stem the spread of AIDS. No such ban would ever be considered in any 
other jurisdiction where the other 113 needle exchange programs are 
operated throughout the country.
  Since the Senate is silent on restricting the District's needle 
exchange program, many are confident that this language will be 
modified in conference. I hope this will be the case so

[[Page 19234]]

that the final conference report will be a document we can all support 
and, thus, will be signed by the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for letting us express our views on 
this again. We are not going to try to instruct the conferees. We had 
an overwhelmingly positive vote, I hope we can continue that spirit in 
conference, and I hope we can bring back a bill to this floor that will 
get the same type of overwhelming vote in support of it and get a bill 
signed by the President.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman's very 
positive comments, and like him, I am committed to accenting the 
positive on this bill.
  As we know, I certainly made a commitment, which I intend to honor 
fully, regarding working something out on the local funding of the 
litigation that the gentleman described.
  We are both aware of the issues surrounding the needle program, and 
there is a privately funded needle program operated. We certainly do 
not intend anything that would go beyond the language the President 
signed into law last year.
  I do not think we are in a position where he would take the extreme 
action of vetoing something, but I look forward to working with the 
gentleman on this and all other issues in this conference.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will just 
conclude that the President has indicated that if we could get that 
language that said no Federal funds could be used for such a program, 
that would certainly be acceptable to him, and I believe to the body of 
this House, in the conference report.
  But again let me conclude where I started. I thank the chairman for 
his cooperation and his leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Istook, Cunningham, Tiahrt, Aderholt, Mrs. 
Emerson, and Messrs. Sununu, Young of Florida, Moran of Virginia, 
Dixon, Mollohan and Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________