[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21111-21126]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2587, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2000

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1900

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the rule, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
August 5, 1999 at page H7384.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and all time I may yield, of course, will be for the purpose of debate 
only.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this conference agreement on 
H.R. 2587, the conference report on the appropriations for the District 
of Columbia.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement endorses the budget 
and tax cuts which were approved previously by the mayor and council of

[[Page 21112]]

the District of Columbia. This helps the District's efforts to 
reorganize, to cut their costs, to reduce their overhead, to reduce the 
size of the peril of the District of Columbia government.
  In conference we retained the initiatives that were in the House bill 
such as major Federal funding for the largest ever crackdown on the 
link between crimes and drugs in the District of Columbia, going after, 
with drug testing and treatment, the 30,000 people in D.C. that are on 
probation or parole and that are a major source of further offenses. 
This is to make D.C. streets and neighborhoods far safer.
  The conference agreement includes incentives to move children from 
foster care to adoption in safe, loving, and permanent homes.
  It includes Federal funding for pediatric health initiatives for 
high-risk children in medically underserved parts of the District.
  This retains the new program of $17 million to assist students in the 
District of Columbia to go to college because they do not have a system 
of State institutions of higher education. This is to provide tuition 
assistance to kids in D.C. to be able to go to college.
  It has language in the House bill strengthening the popular charter 
school movement in the conference report also.
  The conference agreement has the Federal funding to clean up 
pollution in the Anacostia River and to complete design work and 
requirements to alleviate the traffic, stress and congestion with the 
14th Street Bridge across the Potomac River between D.C. and northern 
Virginia.
  In total, Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement totals $429 million 
in Federal funds. That is 24 million below the House bill, 18 million 
above the Senate bill, $255 million less than last year's appropriation 
because of nonrecurring items that are not in this year's bill.
  In District funds, the conference agreement provides 6.8 billion of 
which 5.4 billion is operating funds; 1.4 is capital outlay.
  We also have language requested regarding payment of back attorney 
fees for indigent attorneys or attorneys representing indigents, we 
ratify the bold effort made by the City Council and the mayor in 
reducing taxes, and, Mr. Speaker, we have been careful, of course, 
regarding what some people refer to as social riders.
  There is nothing new, there is nothing new beyond what the House, the 
Senate and the President of the United States agreed upon last year.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the opportunity to work in a 
bipartisan basis. This bill passed the House before with 333 votes, a 
very bipartisan showing with a large number of Democrats as well as 
Republicans. However, Mr. Speaker, I am told that many of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle even though this is for all intents and 
purposes the same bill, the same piece of legislation, I am told that 
many of my Democratic colleagues sadly intend to oppose the bill, not 
because of something new, not because of something different, not 
because of something beyond what the President and the House and the 
Senate have previously agreed to regarding the District. Unfortunately 
it appears to be over a drug-related issue, that there is an effort by 
many activists and extremists to push an agenda to permit the 
legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote was held many months ago on an initiative 
referendum to establish such a law in D.C. Congress, the President, and 
the Senate and the House have acted before to make sure that D.C. does 
not enact drug laws that contravene the laws of the United States of 
America. However under the guise of saying that D.C. should have local 
control or home rule, unfortunately many of my colleagues are saying 
that this bill should be opposed because it does not permit the 
District of Columbia to legalize a drug that is illegal under federal 
law such as marijuana.
  It is sad, it is extremely sad to see an extremist position being 
taken by people to oppose this bill that does so much to help bring the 
District of Columbia back from the sad shape in which we saw it in 
recent years.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate, and I hope that I am mistaken and 
that people will not oppose this bill because it requires the District 
of Columbia to stay in tune with the laws of the United States of 
America regarding drugs. Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to 
remind people article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States of America says that legislative authority regarding the 
District of Columbia resides in the Congress of the United States. Some 
things are delegated to city government, but this Congress retains 
responsibility for the legislation within the District of Columbia.
  So, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to so-called social riders, there is 
in the bill a continued prohibition on having taxpayers' money used to 
finance a lawsuit whereby the District is asking to have a vote in the 
Congress of the United States in the House and in the Senate. It is the 
identical language that was signed into law by the President last year, 
and, in fact, frankly there is no need for public financing of such a 
lawsuit because it is already being fully financed privately and 
handled on behalf of the District by one of the leading law firms in 
the country.
  There is also people that say, oh, they are upset because the bill 
continues what the House and the Senate and the President agreed upon a 
year ago, to say that drug addicts will not be given free needles with 
taxpayers' money. There is already a private program that does that, 
Mr. Speaker. There is no need for taxpayers' money. I would hate to 
think that anyone would take an extremist position of opposing a bill 
that has anti-drug efforts, pro-education efforts, pro-law and order 
efforts, tax cuts and the budget that the District adopted, that they 
want to oppose all these things just because they want to use 
taxpayers' money for drug addicts to get free needles.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible piece of legislation. We have 
worked closely with Members across the aisle, with the mayor, with the 
City Council. I very much appreciate the efforts of the members of the 
committee and subcommittee and staff on this, and I present this 
conference report to the House as something totally consistent with 
what had broad support, bipartisan support in the House just a few 
short weeks ago, and I would certainly hope that nobody will use some 
excuse to try to promote an extremist agenda in opposing this bill.
  I hope I am mistaken, but I fear that it will occur. I ask people to 
support this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the 
conference agreement on H.R. 2587, the District of Columbia 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000. The conferees met in early 
August and resolved the matters in disagreement between the House and 
Senate bills and filed the conference report on August 5th, a little 
more than a month ago.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement endorses the budget 
and tax cuts approved by the District's mayor and council and helps the 
District's efforts to reorganize, cut costs and reduce overhead. We 
were able to retain in conference the initiatives that were in the 
House bill, such as Federal funding for the largest-ever effort to 
crack down on the link between drugs and crime, so that DC's streets 
and neighborhoods will be far safer. The conference agreement includes 
incentives to move children from foster care to adoption in a safe, 
loving, and permanent home, and $2.5 million in Federal funds to 
complete a community pediatric health initiative for high risk children 
in medically underserved areas of the District. We also retained the 
$17 million in Federal funds for tuition assistance to compensate for 
the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition so that DC 
high school graduates will have the same opportunities that exist for 
students in the 50 States who attend State-supported institutions of 
higher education. In addition, language in the House bill strengthening 
the popular charter school movement in the District has been retained. 
The conference agreement also includes Federal funding to clean up 
pollution in the Anacostia River and to complete all design and other 
requirements for the construction of expanded lane capacity for the 
14th Street Bridge across the Potomac River.
  The conference agreement totals $429 million in Federal funds, which 
is $24 million below the House bill, $18 million above the Senate bill, 
and $255 million below last year's

[[Page 21113]]

bill. The reduction of $255 million below last year's bill is due to 
several non-recurring items funded last year. The total conference 
amount of $429 million is $24 million below our 302(b) allocations in 
budget authority and outlays. In District funds, the conference 
agreement provides $6.8 billion of which $5.4 billion is in operating 
funds and $1.4 billion is for capital outlays. The $5.4 billion for 
operating expenses is $7 million below the House level, $29 million 
above the Senate bill, and $284 million above last year; however, 
included in this $284 million increase is a ``rainy day'' reserve fund 
of $150 million.
  The conferees have included language under Defender Services that 
will allow the use of $1.2 million to pay attorneys for their services 
to indigents in FY 1999. The DC Courts underestimated the amount 
required and as a result the attorneys will no longer be paid for their 
FY 1999 services after tomorrow and there is some question as to the 
appointment of counsel for the remainder of fiscal 1999. This language 
will allow the appointments and payments to continue without 
disruption.
  Title II of the conference agreement commends the District for 
reducing taxes and ratifies the city's action in that regard. One of 
the initiatives taken by local officials in agreeing to a consensus 
budget for fiscal year 2000 is to reduce income and property taxes by 
$300 million over the next 5 years, including $59 million in fiscal 
2000.
  I will include a table showing the amounts recommended in the 
conference agreement compared with last year's enacted amount, the 
budget request, and the House and Senate recommendations. I will also 
include the fiscal year 2000 Financial Plan which is the starting point 
for the Independent auditor's comparison with actual year-end results 
as required by section 143 of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, regarding social riders, the conference agreement 
includes language from the House bill that prohibits the use of both 
local and Federal funds for abortions except to save the life of the 
mothers or in cases of rape or incest. Another provision prohibits the 
use of both local and Federal funds to implement the District's 
``domestic partners act''. The conference agreement also includes 
language prohibiting the use of Federal funds for any needle exchange 
program or to legalize or reduce penalties associated with the 
possession, use, or distribution of marijuana and other controlled 
substances. The provision adopted by the House requiring the 
registration of sex offenders in the District of Columbia is also 
included in the conference agreement. This language was requested by 
the City Council after the budget was submitted.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the bipartisan bill that passed 
the House six weeks ago with 333 votes--the largest support in 10 years 
for a DC appropriations bill--included the exact same riders that are 
in this conference agreement. We need to make it very clear that each 
of these riders was included in last year's bill--a bill the President 
signed. There is nothing new in any of the provisions with the 
exception of the marijuana language which will allow the counting of 
the initiative ballots. Language in last year's bill did not allow 
that.
  There are not any new social riders to this bill--only those that had 
previously been approved by the Congress and signed into law by the 
President. And that's exactly what I have done.
  Now during the House debate on this bill, I told the Delegate from 
the District of Columbia that I would work in the conference to soften 
the restriction on the use of funds for the voting rights suit. I did 
that. But I am only one member and I was unable to convince my 
colleague on the subcommittee, let alone the Senate, to change the 
language. My point is I did what I said I would do.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe we should move ahead and adopt this conference 
report so that the District government can get about its business of 
governing and improving the delivery of services to its residents and 
visitors.
  In closing, I want to thank all of our Members for their hard work 
and their contributions to this bill. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Moran, is the ranking Member and we work very well together. I 
especially want to thank our full Committee chairman, the gentleman 
from Florida, Mr. Young, for his support and for his sage advice and 
counsel. The staff has also done an outstanding job: John Albaugh, 
Steve Monteiro and Micah Swafford of my staff; and from the Committee 
staff, Migo Miconi, Mike Fischetti and Mary Porter. They really do a 
great job. Mary Porter has been doing this for 37 years--hard to 
imagine. I also want to thank the minority staff--Tom Forhan and Tim 
Aiken.
  This is a good, responsible conference report and I urge its 
adoption.

[[Page 21114]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE99.001



[[Page 21115]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE99.002



[[Page 21116]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE99.003



[[Page 21117]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE99.004



[[Page 21118]]




                        D.C. APPROPRIATIONS ACTS

     General Provisions
       Following is a list of when a general provision first 
     appeared in an appropriations act (using the general 
     provisions in the FY 2000 Appropriations Act conference 
     report as the base year and going back to FY 1973)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Conference Report--H.R. 2587
            Section                   Page              (Report 106-299)            First year     No. of years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101...........................              13   All contracts are a matter of             1981               19
                                                  public record.
102...........................              13   All vouchers covering                     1973               27
                                                  expenditures shall be audited
                                                  before payment.
103...........................              13   Appropriations are the maximum            1973               27
                                                  amounts.
104...........................              13   Allowances for privately owned            1973               27
                                                  vehicles for official duties
                                                  set by the Mayor.
105...........................              13   Travel expenses concerned with            1973               27
                                                  official business to be
                                                  approved by the Mayor.
106...........................              13   Refunds and judgment payments             1973               27
                                                  to be made by District
                                                  government promptly.
107...........................              13   Public assistance payments to             1973               27
                                                  be made without reference to
                                                  the D.C. Public Assistance
                                                  Act.
108...........................              13   No appropriation available for            1973               27
                                                  obligation beyond current
                                                  fiscal year.
109...........................              14   No funds for partisan                     1973               27
                                                  political activities.
110...........................              14   No funds available to pay any             1979               21
                                                  employee whose name, grade
                                                  and salary history is not
                                                  available for inspection.
111...........................              14   Funds are available for making            1979               21
                                                  payments authorized by the
                                                  Revenue Recovery Act.
112...........................              14   No funds shall be used to                 1979               21
                                                  support or defeat legislation
                                                  pending before Congress.
113...........................              14   Mayor to develop an annual                1982               18
                                                  capital borrowing plan.
114...........................              14   Council approval needed for               1982               18
                                                  capital project borrowings.
115...........................              14   No capital project money is to            1982               18
                                                  be used for operating
                                                  expenses.
116...........................              14   Reprogramming restrictions....            1983               17
117...........................              15   No funds for personal cook,               1973               27
                                                  chauffeur or other servants.
118...........................              15   No funds to purchase vehicles             1982               18
                                                  with less than 22 miles per
                                                  gallon rating.
119...........................              15   Compensation of City                      1983               17
                                                  Administrator and Board of
                                                  Directors of Redevelopment
                                                  Land Agency set at level 15
                                                  of District Schedule.
120...........................              15   Provisions of Merit Personnel             1983               17
                                                  Act of 1978 shall apply to
                                                  D.C. employees.
121...........................              15   Mayor to submit to Congress               1986               14
                                                  revised revenue estimates at
                                                  end of first quarter.
122...........................              15   No sole source contracts may              1988               12
                                                  be renewed or extended
                                                  without competitive bids.
123...........................              16   Balanced Budget Act                       1988               12
                                                  definitions clarified.
124...........................              16   Sequestration order from U.S.             1989               11
                                                  Treasury to be paid within 15
                                                  days after receipt of request.
125...........................              16   Acceptance and use of gifts               1992                8
                                                  subject to certain
                                                  restrictions.
126...........................              16   No Federal funds to be used               1991                9
                                                  for expenses of Congressional
                                                  offices under DC Statehood
                                                  Constitutional Convention
                                                  Initiatives.
127...........................              16   University of DC (UDC) to                 1996                4
                                                  prepare quarterly financial
                                                  reports.
128...........................              17   Funds for new hardware and                1998                2
                                                  software are also available
                                                  for purchase of new financial
                                                  management system (FMS).
129...........................              17   Cap on attorney fees for                  1999                1
                                                  actions brought against the
                                                  D.C. government under the
                                                  Individuals with Disabilities
                                                  Education Act (IDEA).
130...........................              18   No funds available for                    1980               20
                                                  abortions except where the
                                                  life of the mother would be
                                                  endangered or in cases of
                                                  rape or incest.
131...........................              18   No funds available to                     1993                7
                                                  implement Health Care
                                                  Benefits Expansion Act of
                                                  1992 for cohabiting couples.
132...........................              18   DC Public Schools (DCPS) to               1995                5
                                                  prepare quarterly financial
                                                  reports.
133...........................              18   DCPS and UDC to prepare annual            1996                4
                                                  Full Time Equivalent
                                                  positions reports.
134...........................              19   DCPS and UDC to prepare                   1996                4
                                                  revised budgets within 30
                                                  days of enactment of
                                                  appropriations bill to align
                                                  budget with anticipated
                                                  expenditures.
135...........................              19   Boards of DC schools and                  1996                4
                                                  library to approved budgets
                                                  prior to submission in
                                                  Mayor's annual budget.
136...........................              19   Ceiling placed on total                   1996                4
                                                  operating expenses.
137...........................              21   Receivership budgets to be                1998                2
                                                  included in Mayor's annual
                                                  budget submission without
                                                  revision by Council or Mayor.
138...........................              21   DCPS employees classified in a            1996                4
                                                  certain manner.
139...........................              22   Restrictions on use of                    1998                2
                                                  official vehicles.
140...........................              22   Sources of payment for                    1998                2
                                                  detailees is from requesting
                                                  entity's budget.
141...........................              22   Special need students of the              1999                1
                                                  DCPS are to be evaluated or
                                                  assessed within 120 days of
                                                  referral.
142...........................              23   No funds available to DC                  1995                5
                                                  entities unless they comply
                                                  with Buy America Act.
143...........................              23   No funds available for the                1999                1
                                                  annual audit of DC financial
                                                  statements unless conducted
                                                  or contracted by the IG.
144...........................              23   No funds available for                    1993                7
                                                  reorganization plans unless
                                                  plans approved by the DC
                                                  Financial Authority.
145...........................              24   Evaluation of DCPS employees a            1996                4
                                                  non-negotiable item for
                                                  collective bargaining
                                                  purposes.
146...........................              24   No funds available for a                  1999                1
                                                  petition to require Congress
                                                  to provide voting
                                                  representation for DC.
147...........................              24   No funds available to transfer            1999                1
                                                  inmates classified above the
                                                  medium security level as
                                                  defined by the Federal Bureau
                                                  of Prisons transferred to
                                                  Youngstown, Ohio.
148...........................              24   Beginning with FY 2000, the               1999                1
                                                  District government is to
                                                  include in its annual budget
                                                  submission a $150 million
                                                  reserve to be expended
                                                  according to criteria
                                                  established by the Chief
                                                  Financial Officer (CFO) and
                                                  approved by the Mayor,
                                                  Council and DC Financial
                                                  Authority.
149...........................              25   Within 30 days of enactment of            1999                1
                                                  the appropriations act the
                                                  CFO shall submit to Congress
                                                  a revised budget of the
                                                  approved appropriations.
150...........................              25   No funds are available for the            1999                1
                                                  distribution of sterile
                                                  needles or syringes for
                                                  hypodermic injection of any
                                                  illegal drug.
151...........................              25   No funds available for rental   ...............  ..............
                                                  payments under a lease unless
                                                  certain conditions are met.
152...........................              25   No funds available for new      ...............  ..............
                                                  leases and real property
                                                  purchases unless certain
                                                  conditions are met.
153...........................              26   Amend Student Loan Marketing    ...............  ..............
                                                  Association Reorganization
                                                  Act of 1966 to set aside $5
                                                  million for a credit
                                                  enhancement fund for public
                                                  charter schools.
154...........................              26   Within 90 days of enactment of  ...............  ..............
                                                  the appropriations act, the
                                                  city government shall
                                                  implement a process to
                                                  dispose of excess school real
                                                  property.
155...........................              26   Extend date for charter         ...............  ..............
                                                  schools authorization.
156...........................              26   Sibling preference to be given  ...............  ..............
                                                  to charter school applicants.
157...........................              27   Authority to transfer $18       ...............  ..............
                                                  million from the DC Financial
                                                  Authority for severance
                                                  payments to individuals
                                                  separated from DC employment
                                                  during FY 2000.
158...........................              27   Authority to transfer           ...............  ..............
                                                  $5,000,000 from the DC
                                                  dedicated highway trust fund
                                                  for design work to expand the
                                                  land capacity on the 14th
                                                  street bridge.
159...........................              27   Mayor to carry out through the  ...............  ..............
                                                  Army Corps of Engineers an
                                                  Anacostia River environmental
                                                  cleanup program.
160...........................              27   Prohibits payment of            ...............  ..............
                                                  administrative costs from the
                                                  Crime Victims Compensation
                                                  Fund.
161...........................              28   No funds available to pay       ...............  ..............
                                                  salary of any chief financial
                                                  officer who has not filed a
                                                  certification that the
                                                  officer understands the
                                                  duties and responsibilities
                                                  of the officer as a result of
                                                  the approved appropriations
                                                  act.
162...........................              28   Specify potential adjustments   ...............  ..............
                                                  in next years' budgets to
                                                  meet mgmt reforms savings.
163...........................              28   Describe ``misc.'' budget       ...............  ..............
                                                  categories in the annual
                                                  budget submission.
164...........................              29   Authorizes the Army Corps of    ...............  ..............
                                                  Engineers to contract with
                                                  the City to improve the SW
                                                  Waterfront.
165...........................              29   Sense of Congress that DC       ...............  ..............
                                                  should not impose certain
                                                  restrictions on an industrial
                                                  revenue bond for a project of
                                                  the American Red Cross.
166...........................              29   Permits Court Services and      ...............  ..............
                                                  Offender Supervision Agency
                                                  to carry out sex offender
                                                  registration program.
167...........................              30   No funds available to enact or            1999                1
                                                  carry out any program to
                                                  legalize or reduce penalties
                                                  associated with possession,
                                                  use, or distribution of any
                                                  schedule I substance--
                                                  modified--no ballot count
                                                  allowed last year.
168...........................              30   Authority to transfer           ...............  ..............
                                                  $5,000,000 from DC Financial
                                                  Authority for commercial
                                                  revitalization empowerment
                                                  zones.
169...........................              31   Directs Secretary of the        ...............  ..............
                                                  Interior to implement a
                                                  notice of decision concerning
                                                  the issuance of right-of-way
                                                  permits to locate a wireless
                                                  communications antenna on
                                                  Federal property in DC.
170...........................              31   Sense of Congress that in       ...............  ..............
                                                  considering the FY 2001 DC
                                                  budget, Congress will take
                                                  into consideration progress
                                                  or lack thereof concerning
                                                  certain items.
171...........................              32   Prior to using Federal          ...............  ..............
                                                  Medicaid payments to
                                                  Disproportionate Share
                                                  Hospitals (DSH), the Mayor
                                                  should consider
                                                  recommendations of the Health
                                                  Care Development Commission.
172...........................              32   GAO to conduct a study of DC    ...............  ..............
                                                  Justice System to identify
                                                  components most in need of
                                                  additional resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 1999.
     Re District of Columbia appropriations bill.

     Hon. James Moran,
     Rayburn HOB., Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Moran: I have enjoyed the opportunity to work 
     cooperatively on the Appropriations Subcommittee for the 
     District of Columbia, to help our nation's capital rebound 
     from its years of troubles. That is why I was so surprised 
     and disappointed this morning to read the letters that you 
     sent last night to all Members of Congress.
       In your letters, you take a highly extremist position that 
     all our efforts to improve our nation's capital should be 
     thrown away, so that you can promote a pro-drug agenda.
       I fear your position would bring D.C. back to the worst of 
     the Marion Barry days, when the loose attitude toward illegal 
     drugs made the city the butt of late-night talk-show jokes.
       Yet your letters state that all the good work we have done 
     on this bill is unimportant, that instead only four issues 
     matter:
       1. You want to spend taxpayers' money to finance the 
     lawsuit challenging the U.S. Constitution's denial of 
     statehood status (votes in Congress) for D.C., even though 
     this questionable suit is already filed and being handled 
     free by a leading law firm.
       2. You want to spend taxpayers' money to give free needles 
     to drug addicts, to inject themselves with illegal drugs.
       3. You want the District to provide ``domestic partner'' 
     benefits to unmarried live-in lovers of public employees.
       4. You want to permit the District to legalize marijuana, 
     despite federal laws to the contrary.
       Your position is even stranger to understand, because the 
     first three of these four simply repeat provisions already 
     signed into law by the President. (The ``domestic partner'' 
     restriction has been signed into law multiple times). 
     Evidently, it must be the fourth item that is most important 
     to you.
       You attempt to couch this issue in terms of ``home rule,'' 
     as though every city in the country were able to adopt laws 
     contrary to those of the nation and of the states. Where

[[Page 21119]]

     do you draw the line? If you say it's OK for D.C. to legalize 
     marijuana, then what's next? Legalizing cocaine? Or heroin? 
     Or perhaps rape and murder? Under your rationale, it would be 
     fine with you if the District of Columbia did any of these. 
     You would argue for their right to do so, and ignore the 
     victims. You would say it's a ``home rule'' issue, even in 
     the nation's capital.
       The issue is not whether you choose to be pro-marijuana, or 
     pro-needle exchange. The issue is whether you take an 
     extremist stance--disregarding all the good contained in this 
     legislation because these other issues are so much more 
     important to you.
       I'm amazed that you also make these pro-drug stances more 
     important than the 14th Street Bridge project in the bill, 
     which tries to improve the traffic snarls between Washington, 
     D.C., and your congressional district in northern Virginia.
       Let me remind you about some of the good and solid things 
     we have worked together and that this bill does, but which 
     you now seek to block:
       --Making it far easier for the District to keep making its 
     government smaller, more efficient and more responsive,
       --Strengthening and funding charter schools,
       --Creating college opportunities for D.C.'s kids, with 
     millions in new scholarship funds for them, including extra 
     help for those who attend school in Virginia,
       --Launching America's strongest effort to break the link 
     between crime and drugs, (including drug-testing and 
     treatment for all offenders on probation or parole),
       --Funding aggressive adoption efforts to find new homes for 
     abandoned kids,
       --Cleaning-up the Anacostia River, and
       --Lowering taxes in the District, as approved by the mayor 
     and council.
       The bill also honors and approves the budget approved by 
     D.C.'s mayor and council. We respected this key aspect of 
     ``home rule''.
       I'd like to remind you that the bill's language, requiring 
     that D.C. not legalize drugs which are illegal under federal 
     law, was approved by the entire House of Representatives 
     without objection on a voice vote, and while you were on the 
     House floor. If you wanted to kill the bill because you want 
     to let D.C. legalize marijuana, then was the time to do so--
     in public and on C-SPAN, not with private letters to House 
     Members such as you have now sent quietly.
       And you never even attempted a vote on the ``domestic 
     partners'' issue, you know the House has rejected your 
     position many, many times.
       This bill has hundreds of millions of dollars of federal 
     money for Washington, D.C. It is not too much to expect some 
     common-sense provisions to accompany the money.
       Further, the other three items mentioned in your letters--
     no public money for the lawsuit or for a needle exchange 
     program or for ``domestic partners'' benefits--were both 
     contained in the bill last year. The identical language was 
     then approved by the House and by the Senate and signed into 
     law by the President.
       Finally, none of the items you now question were changed 
     during the House-Senate conference. These provisions are 
     identical with the bill passed by the House, and for which 
     you voted. I am perplexed by why you now choose an extremist 
     position rather than the solid position you took when you 
     voted for the bill just a few weeks ago.
       I regret that your actions, by sending your letters to all 
     House Members, might complicate our future efforts to work 
     within the subcommittee. However, I do not intend to let this 
     happen. I pledge nevertheless to continue working with you in 
     good faith on all issues. We may disagree on various things, 
     but that's no reason to abandon the good we can do together.
           Very Truly Yours,
                                            Ernest J. Istook, Jr.,
                                               Member of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) will 
control the 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I was out talking with the Mayor of the District of Columbia on the 
phone when this bill came up. I appreciate the Chair's clarifying that 
I will be managing this bill.
  As my colleagues know, it is sad and unfortunate that we find 
ourselves in this position because the D.C. appropriations bill really 
ought to be one that we could reach consensus on, send to the White 
House, get signed, and get out of the way and deal with the other 
bills. It should almost be done in a perfunctory fashion because, as 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) remembers, and I know he voted 
for the legislation, in 1997 we voted for the D.C. Revitalization Act, 
and what that said was that we are no longer going to do things in the 
way that had traditionally been done with regard to the District of 
Columbia. We are going to give them as much home rule as our 
Constitution allows. What we are going to do is to take the functions 
that other States perform, and the Federal Government is going to 
perform them, and the local functions, the functions that our cities 
perform, we are going to fund those with the same kind of grants and 
contracts that the cities in our legislative districts receive.
  So D.C. is going to be treated the same way that any of our own local 
jurisdictions would be treated.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem is that D.C. has not been treated the way 
that we would have treated our own constituents. That is why we oppose 
this bill.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has done a terrific job. I 
hope he listens to this although he is talking with the very 
distinguished ranking member of the full committee. But I want him to 
know that I appreciate what he has done as an appropriations chairman. 
As an appropriations bill, this is a good bill. It deserves support. 
The problem is not with the appropriations. The problem is with the 
authorizing legislation that has been attached to an appropriation 
bill. That is the extremist legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, who is the extremist here? We are appropriators. We do 
not have any business getting into needle exchanges, and into abortion, 
and into same-sex marriages, and into medical medicinal use of 
marijuana. All that kind of stuff, that is not our job. We appropriate 
money, and if we had stuck to appropriations, everything would have 
sailed through. But we did not. We came out of the House with a bill 
that had a number of riders although there had been some compromise, 
and there was an agreement we would do what we could to compromise with 
the Senate.
  Well, we go into the conference committee. We find out there have 
been pre-conference meetings that the Democrats did not even know 
about, never mind participate in. So we walk in, and it is a done deal. 
Virtually no room for maneuver, virtually no room for any kind of 
negotiation or compromise, and boy did we take the most reasonable 
position imaginable.
  Let me suggest to my colleagues some of the most reasonable things 
that one could imagine that we suggested that were rejected. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) had a proposal that I think was wrong 
for last year. He prohibited D.C. from even counting the ballots on 
whether the referendum as to whether there should be medicinal use of 
marijuana. This year he prohibited the use of drugs that included 
marijuana, made it a criminal penalty. So in conference we suggested, 
well, let us at least clarify some very important points.
  I offered an amendment that said first of all that the prosecutors 
will still be able to plea bargain agreements. If somebody is caught 
with marijuana, and they know that there is a major distributor out 
there, and they could get some information on the major distributor 
instead of somebody that is using marijuana for some kind of 
recreational use but had no prior record or whatever, let us not stick 
them with a mandatory criminal penalty.

                              {time}  1915

  Let us let the prosecutors perform their job as they would with any 
other criminal penalty. Make sure they are allowed to plea bargain.
  Secondly, let us make sure that we are not unintentionally 
prohibiting the legal use of other drugs, such as Marinol, which 
apparently is a derivative of marijuana but is regularly prescribed as 
a painkiller. We do not want to make legal drugs illegal. So what could 
be more reasonable? We offered that. I just assumed that it would be 
accepted. Rejected. Not even any discussion.
  We suggested, in terms of the use of needles, this free needle 
exchange. We have an enormous problem in the District of Columbia. 
There is an article in the Washington Post today that shows that the 
number of children infected by their mothers because of dirty needles, 
that the number of children infected with the HIV-AIDS virus has gone 
up

[[Page 21120]]

70 percent between 1988 and 1997. D.C. has a worse problem than any 
other jurisdiction in the country.
  So we suggested, let us have the language say you cannot use federal 
or local funds for the needle exchange program, but let us at least let 
a private nonprofit organization function. Let us just put that 
language in, to make sure that Whitman-Walker can carry out its own 
program. We should not have any business in restricting a private 
nonprofit from doing what private funds enable it to do. Rejected. Not 
accepted.
  So it went on like that. The Senate thought it was a deal to accept 
the social riders that they did not have; and in return, they cut the 
money that the House had. What kind of a compromise is that? It was a 
lose-lose, when it should have been a win-win situation.
  So the major reason why we oppose this goes back to the golden rule: 
do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In this case it 
applies to our own local jurisdictions.
  Mr. Speaker, we would not impose the kinds of restrictions on any of 
our local jurisdictions that are imposed on the District of Columbia.
  Let me give you an example. Sixty-seven State and local government 
health care plans allow health care coverage for domestic partners. 
Ninety college and university health care plans, 70 Fortune 500 company 
health care plans and at least 450 other private company not-for-profit 
and union health care plans have that kind of coverage.
  I have never seen a Member of this Congress stand up and ask that 
those organizations in their district not be able to have that 
coverage. We are not talking about federal funds.
  Likewise, I have never seen any Member of Congress that has a 
congressional district in California, Oregon, Nevada, Alaska, Arizona 
or Washington State offer an amendment to block the implementation of a 
ballot initiative on the medical use of marijuana.
  It was approved in California. Where are the Members coming up and 
saying, despite what the voters of my jurisdiction did, I want to 
prevent them from carrying out the results of that referendum? We have 
not done it to ourselves. On none of these things have we done it to 
the people in our own constituency, yet we would do it to the District 
of Columbia. That is why we oppose the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time, because we want 
to hear from the one democratically elected delegate from the District 
of Columbia who truly is elected to represent her constituency, and get 
her point of view.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Virginia and others try to 
couch this issue as though it were home rule or local control, as 
though every city in the country were able to divorce itself from the 
rest of the country and adopt laws contrary to the laws of the Nation 
and the laws of the States.
  Where do you draw the line? If you say it is okay for D.C. to 
legalize marijuana, as the gentleman from Virginia argues, then what is 
next? Do you say it is okay for them to legalize heroin, to legalize 
cocaine, to legalize murder, rape, arson? Where do you draw the line?
  Under the rationale of the gentleman from Virginia, it would be fine 
if the District of Columbia legalized anything whatsoever, disregarding 
the laws of the country, disregarding the Constitution that makes this 
Congress responsible for the laws of the District of Columbia. If you 
legalize marijuana, what is next? Cocaine? Heroin? Where do you draw 
the line?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the District of Columbia 
appropriations conference report. We all hope some day the District of 
Columbia will be a crown jewel in our republic form of government, a 
place we are all proud of, a place that we will bring our families with 
pride in our hearts and a place that is safe and clean, where the 
citizens greet each other with a smile. I believe this conference 
report takes us a long step in that direction.
  First of all, this conference report does have a lot of pro-home rule 
provisions. The District of Columbia Council approved a budget. The 
Mayor approved the very same budget. This conference report continues 
along that same line and supports the District of Columbia's budget. I 
think that is self-rule where it counts, in the budget area, in the 
finances.
  Now, there have been problems. There have been problems with the 
District of Columbia following the guidelines that this body has laid 
forth. District of Columbia employees have taken automobiles outside 
the District of Columbia, against the guidelines. The District of 
Columbia has paid for abortions with tax dollars, against the 
guidelines. But, to the credit of this Mayor and the City Council, they 
have made long strides in overcoming the areas where they have fallen 
short, and I think that is why there is such strong support for their 
budget.
  But the opposition seems to be in very radical areas. Number one, the 
opposition says that we want to finance challenging the U.S. 
Constitution, something that has been around since almost when George 
Washington was a corporal. It is already going forward. It is going 
forward pro bono, or free, and we ought to let that proceed, without 
taxpayer dollars.
  If there was a provision to allow the people of the District of 
Columbia to become part of Maryland so that they could vote in 
congressional districts in Maryland, I would be glad to help support 
that. We have seen part of the District of Columbia being yielded back 
to Virginia, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) represents 
part of that area as I recall. So perhaps we could move the balance of 
the District of Columbia into Maryland's congressional districts.
  But that is not the issue here. They want to go for statehood, and 
that is something that has been around for the endurance of our 
Constitution.
  They also want to take taxpayer dollars and buy needles to give 
illegal drug users the opportunity to shoot up illegal drugs in their 
veins.
  Now, there have been a lot of areas that have had similar programs. 
Baltimore has had a program for 7 years. They found out this summer 
that 9 out of 10 injection drug users are infected with a blood-borne 
virus, 9 out of 10 who are in the program. Now, if 9 out of 10 are 
getting a virus, a blood-borne virus, and they are in the needle 
exchange program, I would consider that failure. How do you define 
failure, if that is not failure? Yet that is the very thing that you 
want to fund, and that is the very reason you want to oppose this piece 
of legislation, so we can take tax dollars and use them for a needles 
program.
  I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support this conference 
report.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify some 
things that I know my friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), 
inadvertently must have left out, because I think it is relevant to 
inform the Members that every single scientific and medical study has 
affirmed that needle exchange programs in fact do work with the 
highest-risk population in our urban areas. Baltimore's works 
particularly well, and that is why they continue it as one of the few 
programs that has worked effectively, because it brings people into the 
system where they can get into substance abuse prevention programs, 
reduction programs, and it enables them to be monitored so that you can 
limit the spread of AIDS.
  The National Institutes of Health, the American Medical Association, 
the Centers for Disease Control, we can go right down the line. Every 
prestigious organization that you would think would have an opinion has 
done a study, and they have all come to the conclusion that needle 
exchange programs do not increase the use of the illegal drugs, and 
they do reduce the transmission of the HIV-AIDS virus.
  But the other thing that inadvertently might have been omitted, or I

[[Page 21121]]

guess actually it was misstated, but I think I know the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) or the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) would 
want me to clarify, because we are not talking about the use of 
taxpayer funds. That is what was referred to. The amendment in 
conference would have precluded the use of federal or local public 
funds. It only allowed private money, not taxpayer money, for the 
needle exchange program.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress has forced me and D.C. elected officials to 
the outrageous position of opposing our own appropriation. No local 
budget has any business here, but the least D.C. residents are entitled 
to is respect. Once their elected officials have submitted a frugal 
balanced budget, D.C. went even further. The local budget has tax cuts 
that the majority likes and a surplus, signalling that the city has 
pulled itself out of fiscal crisis.
  I ask for a no vote, not because of attachments. The District has 
long lived with attachments, and I would not ask for a no vote because 
of attachments alone. The opposition of the District is based on new 
and unprecedented inroads into self-government for the first time in 25 
years of home rule.
  First, the bill takes funds slated for urgent District priorities and 
redirects those funds. In addition, not only have attachments grown 
more numerous, now they are prepackaged in the bill before it even goes 
to subcommittee. Further, whatever the District wins, fair and square, 
along the way, does not matter. The Committee on Rules simply reverses 
the vote and reinstates defeated amendments. We lose even when we win.
  Yet the District now has a new management-oriented Mayor with a 
proven track record of fiscal prudence and a revitalized City Council. 
If anyone has been reasonable during this process, I believe I am that 
Member.
  The bill has gotten this far not because it is fair to the District. 
It would never have gotten to conference except that I stretched to be 
fair to the Committee on Appropriations that had worked hard on a bill 
that had some features I supported.

                              {time}  1930

  Even yesterday I asked the Committee on Rules to send the bill back 
as I considered new approaches that might satisfy all concerns. I 
believe, and Members who know me know I believe, in negotiation over 
confrontation.
  Many Members did not want to vote for an appropriation that had 
attachments they opposed. Many more simply did not want to be dragged 
into controversial local issues. Nevertheless, I counseled a yes vote 
because of promises made and of prospects for improvement. The bill 
passed only because many Members voted for it as a courtesy to me.
  Out of the same courtesy and out of respect for the people I 
represent, I now ask Members to oppose the conference report before us. 
The bill has grown worse in conference as the Senate simply piled on 
with unrelated additions, and the House made no improvements and kept 
no promises.
  The District should not be asked to grovel to get its own money. I 
stand here to put Members on notice that I will never grovel before 
this House to get the money to which we are entitled, our own money. 
Nor should the District be asked to live with automatic attachments and 
redirected local spending. If we do not send this bill back to 
conference, it will be vetoed.
  Mr. Speaker, the new city, the new District of Columbia that on its 
own might, with its own sacrifices, has risen from the ashes, deserves 
better. District of Columbia residents deserve much better.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would have to note, in response to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and it has been a good 
opportunity to work together, but if we saw, as was presented, if the 
Members of her party, the Democrat members, the 160 or so who voted for 
the bill before, switch their votes today because the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia asks them to, then I would have to wonder who 
is in charge of the votes of those Members. Is it the people who 
elected them, or have they locked up their votes and handed them to 
another person, in the person of the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia?
  I would certainly hope that constituents would not find that their 
Members of Congress changed their votes just because the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) was unhappy.
  I would have to say that the things of which they complain, and we 
have put in the Record a chart, these are nothing new. These are what 
has been part of this bill for years. We have not added anything new. 
The only thing new is in their extremism to get the District of 
Columbia to be legalizing drugs, to go back to the days when it was the 
butt of late night talk show jokes about the then mayor of the District 
and drug use.
  If they want the scenario of the Nation's Capital legalizing drugs, 
as they have said in their letters sent to other Members of this 
Congress, then the American people need to know that that is the agenda 
and that is why the Democrats in this body are opposing this bill, 
because it is their desire to legalize marijuana, which this bill does 
not permit our Nation's Capital to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying I cannot 
think of another Member whose opinion on this I respect more than the 
delegate, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). 
She has worked very hard and been a great partner in helping to bring 
the Capitol city back, and ably represents that city.
  My friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), we have worked 
very hard on these issues together. As part of the Washington 
metropolitan region, I think he deeply cares and is concerned about the 
District.
  We come to a different conclusion about this bill. There are good 
things in this bill, as has been outlined by my friend, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma, and there are things in this bill that are in it that I 
do not like, as have been outlined by my friends on the other side.
  But at the end of the day, if I vote to reject this bill, I am 
basically voting for a no for $17 million additional dollars for the 
D.C. College Access Act. This is a first-time opportunity for children 
in the District of Columbia graduating from high school to pay State 
university costs, to attend State universities in other places in the 
country, similar to the right that the people in my State get to go to 
the University of Virginia or George Mason or the University of 
Maryland and pay in-State tuition, something affordable to them when 
otherwise they would have to pay out-of-State tuition. That is 
unreachable for many able students in the District of Columbia. So 
Members vote to reject that if they vote this down.
  They vote to reject more dollars for charter schools, which have gone 
a long way. Over 2,000 students have signed up for charter schools in 
the District of Columbia, and a long waiting list to get back in, 
people who want the opportunities for education this alternative offers 
within the public school system.
  We would be rejecting a $5 million study of the 14th Street bridge 
that can add an additional lane there at the interchanges where the 
Parkway feeds into that. If Members vote no, they are voting to reject 
that and sending it back and taking our chances.
  We are rejecting a $5 million Federal appropriation for the cleanup 
of the Anacostia River. This is critical for the city and for its 
economic redevelopment and comeback.
  Most of all we are rejecting, Congress, acceptance of the D.C. 
consensus budget, something put together by the Control Board, the 
mayor and the council, working in harmony. That is

[[Page 21122]]

what the crux of the whole control board legislation was, to get 
everybody working and singing from the same page.
  There are some provisions in this bill that I find obnoxious, that I 
did not support. One is not allowing the city to sue over its statehood 
right, a suit I think they will probably lose, but I think they ought 
to have that right, since we do not give them the right to vote on the 
House floor, something I think the city deserves.
  That was in the bill last year. I do not think by itself that that 
means we should reject all of these other items in the appropriation 
bill. This is not new, unprecedented inroads. This in fact was in the 
bill last year.
  The needle exchange program is something I think reasonable people 
can disagree about. We waiver back and forth when we hear the 
arguments. But this was in the legislation last year and we supported 
it, and the President signed it. This is not a new, unprecedented 
inroad.
  Cellular telephone towers at Rock Creek Park, this obnoxious movement 
into home rule was put on by the Democratic leader in the other body. 
Members may find that an obnoxious provision, but that was something 
put on by the Democratic leader in the other body. That is a first-time 
unprecedented inroad, but I do think by itself is not grounds for 
rejecting this legislation.
  The domestic partners legislation and the prohibitions on the funding 
for abortion have been in this legislation for years and years and 
years. This body has on a consistent basis, although many of us do not 
like some of these provisions, has voted for that because we did not 
think it overcame the positive things that have come out of these 
appropriation bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleagues on this, am not happy with every 
provision of this bill. I stood in the well of the House and spoke 
against some of these provisions when they came up for amendment on the 
House floor. But there is much good in this bill.
  The fact that the consensus budget has been agreed to without the 
kind of tampering we have seen in this body in the past, the fact that 
the college access program is funded for the first year and we can get 
that off the ground, a $5 million study for the 14th Street bridge, 
cleanup for the Anacostia River, money for charter schools, money for 
drug abuse, these items I think make this legislation worthwhile to 
support.
  On those grounds I am going to support this legislation, and urge my 
colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about extremism. I ask my friend, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma, to perhaps listen as we talk about extremism.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to my friend, the distinguished gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Davis), with whom I agree so much of the time. I say 
to him, the good news is that if we reject this conference report, I do 
not think we will ultimately lose any of the good things of which the 
gentleman spoke. If we do, it will be a mean-spirited action, indeed, 
because I presume they are included, because the gentleman's side of 
the aisle as well as my side of the aisle think those things are 
positive. We agree on them.
  I do not rise because I want to legalize drugs. No matter how many 
times the chairman tries to articulate my reason for taking my action, 
it will not make it so, Mr. Speaker.
  Nor will I oppose this bill because the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) tells me to, although I will tell my friend, 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), I believe that the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is due great 
deference on this issue, because in this democracy she has been elected 
by Americans, American citizens, almost 600,000 of them, as we have 
seen, to represent their views. Those views represented by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) are due 
deference, in my opinion.
  But I will oppose this bill for what I believe to be one of the most 
extreme, tyrannical, dictatorial provisions that I have ever seen in a 
bill on this floor. It is a shameful provision in this bill. For the 
American Congress to take the position that an American citizen cannot 
seek redress in the courts of this land through its corporate structure 
I say is un-American. It is contrary to the principles that the 
people's houses ought to represent.
  I am shocked that it was not dropped in conference. The fact of the 
matter, the chairman has said, oh, it was in last year's bill, so those 
who hear that statement will say, oh, well, it must have been, and it 
was. But last year's bill was included in a bill that appropriated 
$400-plus billion. It was incorporated in a bill that we had to pass at 
the last minute because of the failure of the Committee on 
Appropriations to pass its appropriations bills seriatum, so we did 
them all in one package, so the President was left with really no 
alternative.
  So in this bill we incorporate a provision, and Mr. Speaker, it is 
not made better because it was included last year. It is made worse 
that we would repeat this error, this egregious denial of democracy, 
where we say to the citizens of the District of Columbia, you cannot go 
to court and say that the way you are being treated is 
unconstitutional.
  That is the basis of our government. Why? Because it says to every 
individual, no matter how small, whether they are 99 and 9 tenths 
percent not agreed to by the rest of us, that they have the inherent 
right as a citizen of this country to go to the courts and seek redress 
of their grievances.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision of the bill is offensive to democracy, 
offensive to our Constitution, offensive to the basic rights of 
individuals to redress their grievances in the only way the 
Constitution sets forth ultimately for the minority. The majority can 
redress its grievances by voting in this body. The majority can always 
redress its grievances. But the genius of our system is that we provide 
a procedure where even the minority can redress its grievances. That is 
addressing the court.
  This bill ought to be rejected for the inclusion of that provision 
alone.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think some people could have been thoroughly confused 
by what we just heard from the gentleman from Maryland.
  This bill does not stop anybody from going to court. The gentleman 
knows better than what he has said. They have already filed that 
lawsuit. It is already in court. It is already pending before the judge 
for a decision. This bill did not stop anybody from going to court, it 
just said they cannot use taxpayers' money to finance the lawsuit.
  They have one of the best legal firms in the country, Covington & 
Burling, handling that lawsuit that the gentleman claims people are 
stopped from bringing. They are already in court. It is already 
happening. The bill just says we do not use taxpayers' money to pay for 
that lawsuit.
  To pretend that somehow this has denied people access to the courts 
would be just plain hogwash.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in history and in the 
last Congress, we had over 20,000 children in the D.C. school system 
request to go to summer school, not because they had to, but because 
they wanted to.
  We are trying to turn the entire education system around in D.C. to 
where most of the children that graduate are functionally illiterate 
and those who do not graduate drop out. The system has totally gone 
bankrupt.
  Education, public works, the city, a mayor sniffing cocaine and 
putting the rest of it up his nose, the system to where we had school 
board members that were hired because of their political affiliations 
to Marion Barry. The

[[Page 21123]]

mayor today is a bright light and has tried to work with this Congress 
and I think has done very well.
  Charter schools. The education system. We did not cut public 
education. We actually increase education dollars and the charter 
schools. Thanks to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), for the 
first time in this bill, children in D.C. can go to other universities 
of other States and not have to pay that tuition.
  I mean, that is fantastic, those kinds of changes that have been made 
in this.
  The Anacostia River. How many have ever been up to Bladensburg? Look 
at the mud flats, the toxic wastes that are up there. For years, it has 
piled up. The Anacostia River has more parts per fecal than any river 
in the United States of America. Why? Because every time it rains, the 
sewage from D.C. system flows into that valley, and all of that fecal 
material goes into that river.
  It is so bad, there is so much bacteria that it soaked up all the 
oxygen in the Anacostia, and that is why the fish died, bacteria taking 
up oxygen.
  The Navy has agreed to dig out those areas with toxics and the PCB. 
We have established a $25,000 fine for dumping. I took a little boat up 
there. One cannot even get one's boat up there for the beer cans and 
the dump and the trash.
  These are good things. It is a health hazard. It is an economic 
hazard. And we are changing those kinds of things.
  Mary Williams has worked with us to revitalize that waterfront. Go 
down there. There are empty lots down there full of beer bottles and 
trash because the D.C. system wanted a year-by-year lease. They get 
money under the table. Well, we will give one a lease but one has got 
to give a little bit of money back to me. That liberal system failed.
  We are putting in 30-year leases so that there will be businesses 
established down there. We want to take that whole waterfront and turn 
it into a San Francisco waterfront where we have got businesses that 
are creating dollars instead of the neglect that D.C. has given it.
  The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) says, ``We 
did it on our own.'' I do not believe that. The system was so far out 
of line that the control board had to be established. For 40 years, the 
Democrats did nothing. The neglect for D.C. Look at the education 
system. Look at the crime. Look at the streets. Look at everything.
  We took the majority. We established a control board. We are coming 
in. We are changing the school systems. We are cleaning up the 
Anacostia River. We are cleaning up the waterfront. They want to oppose 
it because they want to give drug addicts needles, or they want to 
legalize marijuana.
  I disagree with my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) that every study 
has not been conclusive. Take a look at Sweden and other areas. I ask 
for a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to respond to the statement of 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, to clarify on the court suit, the measure in 
the bill keeps our corporation counsel, the one lawyer with expertise 
in District affairs, from even looking at the papers that had, in fact, 
been drawn by the private law firm, on his own time. When our 
corporation counsel did so on his own time, after getting permission of 
a court, a Member of this body wrote him and asked him to submit all of 
his leave records. If that is not extreme, the word needs a new 
definition.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma says that the 
District of Columbia should not be able to use taxpayers' dollars to 
petition for the right to be represented in this body. What he forgot 
to tell us is that it is their money. Each of us represents half a 
million people, and we cast a vote on their behalf in this chamber. 
This bill says that the city cannot even use its own money to pursue 
the right in court to have their own voting representative.
  Now, one may disagree with their right to have that idea, but to say 
that the City cannot use its own resources and has to depend on private 
fund raising in order to achieve a public right is, to me, the ultimate 
act of antidemocratic arrogance.
  These are Americans we are talking about. These are taxpayers we are 
talking about. Yet, we say that they have to go hand in hand to raise 
private money in order to achieve their own public rights. That is 
outrageous to be heard in any democratic institution. If big brother is 
going to tell the City what their own ordinances can contain, then at 
least that City ought to have a voting right in this body, and they 
ought to be able to use their own resources in order to try to achieve 
that end.
  If he disagrees with the idea that they ought to have a voting right 
in this body, so be it. But they have a right to use their own money 
the way their own local taxpayers want it to be used, not the way the 
gentleman from Oklahoma thinks is correct. That is the ultimate big 
brother arrogance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlemen from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) each have 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would suggest that my friend across the aisle who has such harsh words 
for this provision ought to be addressing those harsh words to the 
President of the United States who signed into law the identical 
provision word for word, comma for comma of which they now complain.
  That is the only reason why it remains in this bill because it was 
approved last year by the House and Senate even before it was an 
omnibus bill and then signed into law by the President of the United 
States. Thus, that being the position that these bodies and the White 
House have taken before, it remains the position.
  We had a vote in the body. The Senate was not willing to change on 
this provision, and it remains as it has been. But it does not cost 
anybody their rights to pursue their desire to have a vote in this 
Congress. The lawsuit is in court. It is pending. They have one of the 
top-notch law firms in the country representing them at no cost to the 
taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding me this time.
  I wanted to touch base real quickly on this lawsuit a little bit, Mr. 
Speaker, because what the lawsuit is about is Washington, D.C.'s right 
to become a State, and that is something that this Congress has voted 
on, and the votes fell short. So now Washington, D.C. is trying to take 
a court route for their right, and I do support their right to go to 
court.
  But I want to remind everybody today we voted to reduce funding for 
something that is also very important to our counties and 
municipalities around the country, and that is the CDBG, the Community 
Development Block Grant program. Let us say, if some counties out there 
did not like the amount that we voted on, should they be suing us, and 
should we give them money to sue us for that?
  This matter that is pending in court has been debated on this floor 
in the House. It has been voted on by this floor of the House, and it 
was voted down. I am sorry that folks in Washington, D.C. want to take 
this to court. They do not like this legislative process. But that is 
why we have a legislative process. There are winners, and there are 
losers in it.
  On the issue of home rule, Washington, D.C. as a city grew up around 
the Capitol of the Nation. This was a swamp. There was the City of 
Georgetown, but there was not Washington, D.C. until the United States 
Capitol came here. Because of that, there has always been a 
relationship between the government and Washington in terms of who is 
going to run what.
  I believe there was not home rule for a while, and then there was 
home rule

[[Page 21124]]

up until something like 1871, and then it was lost because one of the 
mayors 100 years ago was spending too much money on roads, and Congress 
took the right of home rule away. Then I think in, what, in the 1970s, 
it came again.
  Then in 1994, there were debates about taking home rule away. Because 
of the leadership of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and many others who 
said, wait, that is too harsh on this city. Let us keep home rule in 
place, and let us work through this control board. A lot of things, 
because of their position taken by these folks and their leadership, 
prevailed.
  The university, the law school, and the hospital, all of which 2 to 3 
years ago were on the chopping block to be cut, but because of the 
autonomy of Washington, D.C., they were able to retain that.
  There is a relationship between the Congress and Washington, D.C. It 
is not always a happy marriage, but it is there. They will probably not 
have complete home rule for many years to come. But in the meantime, I, 
as a Member of Congress, cannot vote to legalize marijuana in 
Washington, D.C. I cannot give them that option, because what about the 
other cities who want to do that or some of the other proposals like 
needles to drug addicts? If Washington, D.C. wants that, is it not fair 
to give that option to all other cities across the Nation? We as a 
Congress have voted not to do that.
  Now, there are a lot of good, positive things in this bill, despite 
the fact that we disagree on much.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to respond.
  The gentleman, for one thing said with regard to the needle exchange 
programs that we should provide such authority to all the 
jurisdictions. Every jurisdiction in the country has the authority to 
determine whether or not they want a needle exchange program. A great 
many of them, I think it is 113 cities, have chosen to do so.
  All we are saying is the District of Columbia, under a democratic, 
small ``d,'' form of government ought to be able to make that decision 
on their own. Our language which said no Federal funds and no local 
public funds should at least have been accepted so one can use private 
funds.
  But with regard to the voting rights act, let me suggest to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is my friend, the gentleman 
who consistently underscores the fact that the White House signed a 
bill that included this language, we have a written correspondence from 
the Executive Office of the President making clear that the 
administration opposes language included in both bills which would 
prohibit the use of Federal or District funds to provide assistance for 
petition drives or civil actions that seek to require voting 
representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.
  That was an omnibus bill. There were hundreds of provisions, 
thousands of them, actually, if one has gone into all the different tax 
provisions and so on. Politics is the art of compromise. We had to keep 
the government going, and there was some compromise sought. But that 
legislation expired at the end of this fiscal year.
  So the administration feels I know very strongly that that 
legislation should not be renewed and would be one criteria for vetoing 
this bill.
  Again, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) 
says, there are some things that do require some resources from the 
District of Columbia, such as the D.C. Corporation Counsel being able 
to review the legal briefs to make sure there is no problem with the 
litigation that the private law firm is bringing forward. I am not 
talking about much money. Pennies. One has to know it is nothing that 
would even show up in an appropriations bill.
  But to be so extreme as to prohibit D.C. Corporation Counsel from 
reviewing that legal brief just does not seem fair or appropriate and 
does seem to the extreme.
  Now, I was looking for the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). 
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) represents the City of 
Baltimore, and, Mr. Speaker, he feels very strongly, having seen the 
very positive impact of the needle exchange program in Baltimore with 
regard to the serious drug problem that they are experiencing, that 
this is a proven program that should be renewed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to address this whole 
issue of the courts. As a lawyer of 21 years, I am very concerned about 
this. It is interesting to listen to this argument as basically a new 
Member and listen to the other side talk about how the law firm is 
doing its thing and working hard for the District. And I certainly 
applaud that, but the thing that they fail to say is that this is 
something that has been basically rammed down their throats.
  It is nice for that law firm to be doing this, but when we hear the 
words of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), 
which really shocks the conscience when she talks about the fact that 
the corporation counsel on his own time has to then go back and report 
to a Member of Congress, I do not think any Member of this body would 
stand for that kind of thing in their district.
  There is a portion of the Bible that says a very simple, simple 
thing; and I think that we ought to think about it more in this body, 
and as a new Member I say it to my colleagues: ``Do unto others as you 
would have them do unto you.'' As I said before a little earlier, I do 
not think any Member of this body would stand for the people in their 
districts not being represented and not having the funds and not being 
able to use their funds to do the things that they want to do.
  On the issue of needle exchange, I want to make it clear. I started 
not to speak, because I did not want this bill and this effort to be 
viewed as a needle exchange effort. It is not about that. But the 
needle exchange portion is very important because it is about saving 
lives.
  I hope that none of my colleagues on the other side, and those people 
who may be against needle exchange, ever have the opportunity to attend 
the funeral of someone whose body is all shriveled up. I hope they 
never have a loved one who is lying in bed in pain, and in so much pain 
they do not even know they are in pain. I hope they never experience 
that, but I have seen it in Baltimore.
  I do not have to go to Sweden; I can go 45 miles away from here and 
see a program that works and works very effectively. The people of the 
District of Columbia are simply saying we want to do this; we want to 
use our funds to do this, and they are asking us to yield and give them 
that opportunity.
  So when we err, and we always worry about erring on the side of what 
is right or erring on the side of what is wrong; but if we err, let us 
err on the side of life and not death. Let us err on the side of those 
programs that do work. As I said, we do not have to go to Sweden; we 
can go 45 miles away and see something that works. I see it every day. 
I see it working. I see crime reduced. I see the number of AIDS cases 
reduced. I see the number of people on drugs reduced. And I see that in 
my district.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook) has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to rise this evening in 
support of the conference report. The subcommittee has worked very 
diligently under its chairman's leadership to put this bill together.
  Opponents of this bill claim that this is a question about home rule. 
The Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8,

[[Page 21125]]

gives Congress the ultimate responsibility for decisions affecting the 
District. The subcommittee has upheld the Constitution and found ways 
to work positively with the D.C. government.
  The subcommittee approved intact the same budget that the D.C. 
Council and the Mayor approved. Also, this bill ratifies $59 million in 
tax relief that the D.C. Council and Mayor approved as well.
  Almost all of the so-called riders are incidental to what Congress 
passed and the President signed last year. These measures provide 
common sense policies that all Members should support. For example, why 
should we allow the District of Columbia to spend funds to legalize 
marijuana when such efforts contradict current law?
  But aside from these measures, this bill has many other positive 
aspects. There are funds to provide better education for children by 
strengthening public charter schools. There are funds to provide high 
school graduates with millions of dollars for new scholarship 
opportunities and more choices when deciding which college to choose.
  This is a bill that will continue, in my opinion, to improve our 
Nation's Capital. I urge support of the conference report.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I think we have made our point. Number one, this is a good 
appropriations bill. If the Members wanted to change the national law 
with regard to the medicinal use of marijuana, with regard to needle 
exchanges, with regard to a host of other issues, there are dozens of 
social riders in this thing, we should go to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is here, and 
let him take them up. Let it go through the authorization process, not 
the appropriations process.
  We have agreed that there will not be federal funds used for any of 
these controversial measures. No federal funds. We are not arguing 
that. We are just saying treat D.C. like we treat the jurisdictions in 
our own congressional districts. That is all we are asking. And if we 
were to do that, we would all vote for this appropriations bill because 
it is a good appropriations bill. It has tax cuts, it has a surplus, 
and it does the right thing.
  We should do the right thing for the District. Vote against this. Let 
us get a real appropriations bill.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  It is pretty simple for most people to weigh the good against the 
bad. We have a bill that has a balanced budget, reducing the size of 
D.C. government, streamlining it, helping it be more efficient and 
effective. There is scholarship money for kids to go to college. 
Charter schools are strengthened so they are not trapped in dead-end 
schools. It has the Nation's best new program to fight the link between 
crime and drugs. We have in this bill opportunity; we have cleanup of 
the Anacostia River. We have all of these good, strong, solid things.
  What is on the other side of the scales? Well, it does not let the 
District of Columbia legalize marijuana, and it does not let them use 
public money for a lawsuit that is already filed and being paid by 
private individuals. Therefore, they say, that outweighs everything 
else in this bill. How extreme. How extreme.
  And for people to say they will reverse their support, 160 Democrats 
going to reverse their support because they have surrendered their vote 
to an extreme position, following the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia; that they have surrendered their vote. What will their 
constituents think? That outweighs all the good in this bill. To 
legalize drugs? No. Vote for the conference report.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
District of Columbia, but in opposition to this Appropriations 
conference report. Our Capital City and its residents deserve to enjoy 
the benefits of the democratic process without interference from the 
Congress. This conference report is full of provisions that adversely 
affect the government of the city.
  The right of self-governance is something that all of us take for 
granted. We take for granted that our respective districts, whether 
they are large metropolitan cities like Houston, or small rural towns, 
depend on the democratic process. In every place, except for the 
District of Columbia, the decisions made by the locally elected 
government are respected.
  Even when these local officials make decisions that we might not 
agree with, there is no congressional action taken to overturn them. 
This is because local government is subject to a democratic process 
that provides an internal system of checks and balances. If the people 
do not like the decision of their officials, then the people vote those 
officials out of office.
  This same process occurs here in Congress. We are also subject to the 
will of the people. However, we live and work here in the District of 
Columbia, and we insist that the principle of democracy we hold so dear 
does not apply. How hypocritical!
  This Congress should be ashamed of this conference report. Once 
again, we intend to force the will of our special interests against 
this city. Proposals that we would not dare entertain in our own 
districts, we impose on the District.
  We require the District government to jump through various hoops so 
that the elected mayor can receive his powers to govern. We humiliate 
the elected City Council by overseeing every piece of legislation they 
consider. We continue to treat the city and its residents as if they do 
not exist.
  However, this year D.C. has proven that its government works and that 
its elected officials can handle the day-to-day management of the city. 
With a new mayor and city council, this city is on its way to financial 
recovery. The city has even submitted a sound budget with a surplus.
  Congress should reward that progress by staying out of the internal 
affairs of the District government. Their citizens pay their taxes, 
vote and work just as hard as our constituents at home and we should 
not infringe upon their rights as American citizens.
  The conference report includes provisions that restrict certain uses 
of District government funds. It includes the provision that prohibits 
federal and District funds from being spent on needle exchange 
programs.
  The needle exchange program could help the District combat the spread 
of AIDS through contaminated needles, but this Congress has decided 
that D.C. residents cannot benefit from this sort of program. This 
Congress determined this program was too controversial for the D.C. 
government to spend its own funds.
  Although this report does allow the city to count the ballots from 
the referendum on the legalization of marijuana, the city cannot spend 
any of its funds to reduce penalties or for legalization. If another 
state had a similar ballot referendum, this Congress would not prevent 
the results from being known, nor would we interfere with the 
implementation of such.
  It continues to prohibit the use of District funds for abortion, 
although no such prohibition exists for other states. It also prohibits 
the use of funds for extending rights to domestic partners. Again, this 
would not be heard of for any State.
  Since the federal payment to D.C. was eliminated in 1997, the 
Congress has no interest in how funds are spent in the city. 
Unfortunately, the appropriation process in the District is being held 
hostage to the interests of a few who would seek to continue the ``big 
brother'' watch over the city.
  Although we are approaching the 21st century, the beginning of a new 
millennium, in Washington, DC, it is more like 1984--like the book 
written by George Orwell. Watch out D.C., ``Big Brother'' is watching 
your every move!
  Please support the notion of local governance that we fight so 
ardently for in our own jurisdictions. Let's give a strong vote of 
confidence to the new mayor and city council in the District by voting 
against this conference report.
  The citizens of the District of Columbia are not second-class 
citizens. They are just as important as my constituents in Houston are 
and as any of your constituents. Do not continue to send the message to 
the District residents that we do not care about democracy in this 
city. Vote against this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208, 
nays 206, not voting 20, as follows:

[[Page 21126]]



                             [Roll No. 404]

                               YEAS--208

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

                               NAYS--206

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Ackerman
     Cooksey
     Crowley
     Diaz-Balart
     Houghton
     Latham
     Lipinski
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Oxley
     Pryce (OH)
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Roukema
     Stark
     Sununu
     Towns
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2032

  Mr. SHOWS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HERGER and Mrs. CHENOWETH changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________