[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21833-21837]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]





    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will state 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 2587.
  The legislative assistant read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2587), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 9, 1999.)
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today I am pleased to bring to the 
Senate floor the conference report making appropriations for the 
Government of the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2000. The 
conference report endorses the District's $5.3 billion operating budget 
and its $1.4 billion capital budget, as adopted by the mayor, the 
District council, and the financial authority.
  The conference report appropriates $429.1 million in Federal funds. 
In fact, 

[[Page 21834]]

having worked out this legislation with the House, the 
conference report is actually $18.3 million more than the President's 
request. This is a good bill for the residents of the District of 
Columbia and for the people of America, whose capital this is.
  Let me list some of the positive provisions.
  For education, we have provided $17 million in funding for a new and 
unique tuition program that will allow D.C. students to pay instate 
tuition rates at universities. The District is home to only one public 
university. This legislation will allow D.C. students the opportunity 
to attend universities outside the District of Columbia without



having to pay exorbitant out-of-State tuition rates. This is a major 
advancement for D.C. students.
  We have also provided equal funding for charter schools in the 
District of Columbia. Charter schools are holding great promise to 
improving education in the District. Just this week, I visited the 
Edison Friendship Charter School, less than a mile from the Capitol. 
This is a school that has school uniforms, teaches Spanish in 
kindergarten, provides take-home computers by the third grade, and 
every student there has doubled their test scores in 1 year. There are 
700 students in the school, with 900 on the waiting list. I have to 
tell you, that was one of the most fun experiences I have had, seeing 
those bright, inquisitive kids who really love where they are. I asked 
one young girl, as I walked in, if she liked the school, and she said, 
`` `Like' is not the right word.'' I said, ``Do you love this school?'' 
She said, ``I love it.''
  Good education in the District is possible. We just have to allow 
good parents, teachers, and principals the flexibility to provide it 
without the top-down interference of the entrenched bureaucratic rule.
  This conference report also addresses the issue of crime in the 
District. No one doubts that there is a drug problem in the District. 
At the request of Senator Durbin, our bill provides an extra $1 million 
for the District police to wipe out open-air drug markets in the city.
  The conference report also provides funds for drug testing people on 
probation in the District. We know from studies that when people on 
probation return to drug use, they also return to criminal behavior. 
This bill will get them off the streets if they flunk the drug test.
  Another important part of the bill is continuing on a path of fiscal 
discipline for the city. The city's finances used to be a disaster. In 
fact, it was the reason the control board was created. There was a time 
when the city's debt was rated ``junk'' status by the bond-rating 
agencies. With the leadership of Mayor Anthony Williams, the control 
board, and the city council, working together, this situation has 
changed dramatically. I want to keep it that way. In fact, I want to 
make it better. The city's bond rating is still the lowest rank of 
investment-grade quality. I think it can be higher. The conference 
report provides that the District budget maintain a $150 million 
reserve--a true rainy day fund.

  We have also required the District to maintain a 4-percent budget 
surplus. But we have provided the flexibility above that surplus to pay 
down the debt and spend more on services, should the District have 
funds. The triple combination of a strong reserve, a surplus budget, 
and the requirement above that surplus that half must go for debt 
reduction and half for increased spending will increase the bond rating 
of the District and reduce debt costs in the long run.
  The economic revitalization of this city is also an important 
priority for me. For years, the city has lost population and many areas 
of the city have fallen into disrepair. In this conference report, I 
have included a program that I believe will be helpful for the 
District--a $5 million fund to be used for commercial revitalization. I 
have introduced legislation similar to this in Congress for other 
cities, and I believe it will provide an incentive to rebuild and 
refurbish blighted areas in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, 
helping clean them up and make them more safe for the children and 
people who live there.
  For the environment, the conference report provides $5 million to 
clean up the Anacostia River. It has been a polluted river. Cleaning it 
up will be a significant environmental advancement for the people of 
the District.
  Finally, the conference report includes a provision that will allow 
the D.C. Superior Court to spend $1.2 million in interest from its 
fiscal year 1999 appropriation to pay the District's defense attorneys 
for indigents. Payment to these attorneys was halted by the Superior 
Court this week.
  Until the conference report is signed into law by the President, 
these attorneys will not be paid salaries they have earned representing 
the District's indigent clients and children.
  The administration has signaled Congress that the President could 
veto this bill because of certain riders. I hope the President will 
look at all of the provisions and realize that all of the so-called 
riders have been part of past D.C. appropriations bills he has signed.
  This is a good conference report. It supports and strengthens the 
Mayor's new administration. It supports the council's tax cut 
provisions. It funds the District of Columbia Resident Tuition Support 
Program and it adds $18.3 million over and above the President's 
request for the District. It does not allow the legalization of 
marijuana, it does not allow needle exchanges, and it does not allow 
city expenditures to sue the United States for voting rights for 
Senators and Congress representatives.
  I think it is a good bill. I hope the President will not choose to 
veto the bill because it doesn't allow for the legalization of 
marijuana and needle exchanges. I urge my colleagues to support this 
conference report so the District will have the funds in time to begin 
the new fiscal year.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Today we are here to talk about the appropriations for the District 
of Columbia, a special city--the Nation's Capital--and our 
constitutional responsibility to oversee it.
  As the Senator from Texas has already said, a substantial portion of 
tax dollars is involved in the D.C. budget, and for that reason and 
others, historically and legally, Congress has accepted the 
responsibility to oversee the budget of the District of Columbia. About 
8 percent of the funds the District spends come from the Federal 
Government. As a result, we assume a responsibility in managing this 
city unlike any other city in America.
  I have been puzzled over the years as I have dealt with this 
challenge about how many Members of Congress--House and Senate--who 
have never given a thought to running for mayor or city council 
anxiously play that role when it comes to the District of Columbia. I 
think that is unfortunate. I believe in home rule.
  I have had some serious misgivings about policy changes made by the 
District of Columbia City Council--for instance, when it comes to tax 
cuts--but I have made those public. I have gone no further in this bill 
because I think it is their decision to make.
  I also want to say at this moment that it has been a pleasure to work 
with my colleague from Texas, Senator Hutchison. It is the first time 
we have been in this role together in her position as the Chair of the 
subcommittee and mine as the minority spokesman. She has been honest, 
open, and professional in our dealings. Though we disagree on many 
issues, it has been a pleasure to work with her on this.
  I also want to compliment her staff, Mary Beth Nethercutt and Jim 
Hyland for their cooperation.
  I salute as well those on my side--Terry Sauvain, who is not only the 
minority clerk for this bill but who also serves as the minority deputy 
staff director for the Appropriations Committee. Our good friend and 
colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, was kind enough to lend Terry for our 
effort. And without him, we wouldn't be here today.
  I also want to thank Marianne Upton, a member of my personal staff,
  
[[Page 21835]]  
  
who has been working on this tirelessly since we received this 
assignment.
  Let me say a word or two about some others who are not members of the 
Senate staff but deserve recognition. My former House colleague, 
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has worked tirelessly for the 
District of Columbia. And a difficult job she has. Not being a voting 
Member of the House of Representatives, she has to use the powers of 
persuasion to be an advocate for the people of this city. I admire her 
greatly for the leadership she has shown. I also note that she opposes 
this conference report before us, as do many of the leaders in the 
District of Columbia.
  Finally, let me say a word about the new Mayor. I have the greatest 
hope for this Mayor. I think he is an exceptional individual. I have 
known him for years in our professional relationship on Capitol Hill. 
He marks a real change in pace in the District of Columbia. I think he 
has done a great job to date with a very difficult assignment. I have



the greatest hope that he will continue and be very successful in those 
efforts to make our Nation's Capital a source of pride for everyone in 
America.
  When people come to the District of Columbia to visit as tourists, or 
from other countries, there are certain impressions they leave with. 
The beautiful buildings of our Nation's Capital, perhaps the workings 
of our Government, but, of course, an image of the city. I am sorry to 
say that image is not always positive. I have cautioned people from 
Illinois and members of my family when they visit the District of 
Columbia to be careful. There is a lot of crime here, a lot of violent 
crime. You have to take care where you might not at home. That is not 
to say this is the most dangerous city. That would be an overstatement. 
But it is an urban city with many urban crime problems. Frankly, I 
think we can and should do a better job in impressing them.

  I also have to concede that there are problems in the District of 
Columbia that may not be obvious. But they go to the heart of these 
riders that have been put on the District of Columbia appropriations 
bills. Let me tell you what has happened.
  Republican Members of Congress unable or unwilling to impose changes 
in legislation in their own home States or on the Nation use these 
appropriations bills as the happy hunting grounds for every extreme 
viewpoint you can find. It is the last recourse for scoundrels who will 
not impose on their own cities and States changes in the law but will 
do it to the District of Columbia.
  Time and time again, limitations put on the District of Columbia are 
not being imposed on other States across the Nation. Members of 
Congress think they have free reign; it is a playground to introduce 
any amendment to any issue they would like knowing the District of 
Columbia is almost powerless in this process. They are victims of this 
congressional excess.
  That is why the President should veto this bill and say to the 
Republican leadership and those on the Democratic side who have joined 
them that enough is enough. These riders are unfair to the people of 
the District of Columbia. Let me give you an example.
  You may visit Washington, DC, and be impressed with many things. You 
probably would not know unless you were told that the District of 
Columbia faces a severe crisis. It has the highest rate of new HIV 
infections and deaths due to AIDS in the Nation. It is more than seven 
times the national average right here in Washington, DC.
  Exhaustive scientific studies that have been underway by the National 
Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, and others, have concluded that some programs can help to 
reduce the spread of AIDS and HIV in the District of Columbia.
  One of those programs, controversial as it is, is a needle exchange 
program. This bill bans the District of Columbia from using any funds, 
Federal or local, to operate a program for needle exchange. To make it 
even worse, it says any entity which carries out such a program using 
private money is barred from eligibility for any Federal funding for 
any purpose.
  I will tell you, there are 113 needle exchange programs across 
America. In virtually every instance they not only reduce the incidence 
of AIDS but they reduce the incidence of drug addiction.
  I sat in that conference committee as my fellow colleagues in that 
conference said piously: We don't want to see this in the District of 
Columbia. I produced a map showing that many of these same Congressmen 
represent cities across America with similar programs and have never 
voted to bar or prohibit but they do in the District of Columbia where 
we have such a terrible epidemic of HIV and AIDS. That is sad.
  Seventy-five percent of the babies born with HIV in the District of 
Columbia are due to the use of dirty needles by either their mother or 
their father. The District of Columbia has the highest rate of new HIV 
infections in the country. And yet we would put this provision in the 
law to stop even a modest effort to reduce this epidemic. I think that 
is awful. For that reason alone, I hope the President will veto this 
bill. But there are others.
  There is also a ban in this bill to stop the use of any funds to 
implement a locally enacted law allowing District of Columbia employees 
to purchase health insurance or take family and medical leave to care 
for a domestic partner. The bill unfairly singles out the District of 
Columbia, discriminating against law-abiding citizens who happen to be 
unmarried but cohabitating.
  Over 67 State and local governments, 95 colleges and universities, 
almost 70 of the Fortune 500 companies, and at least 450 other 
companies and not-for-profits and unions offer these same benefits. Not 
one Member of Congress is proposing to stop these programs anywhere 
other than the District of Columbia. That is basically unfair.
  On the question of voting representation, another rider precludes the 
District of Columbia from using any funds, Federal or local, to finance 
a court challenge aimed at securing voting rights in the District of 
Columbia. This effectively means that the lawyers for the District of 
Columbia are prohibited from even reviewing legal documents on the 
question. I cannot imagine a Member of Congress or the Senate imposing 
a similar limitation on any municipality or unit of local government in 
their own State.
  On the medical use of marijuana, I know it is controversial, but let 
me name some of the States which have decided if a doctor makes a 
decision that the operative chemical in marijuana is important for 
therapy, that it can be legal, if prescribed by a doctor. These States 
include the States of Washington, California, Oregon, Nevada, Alaska, 
and Arizona. All have voted for medical use of marijuana. Yet we have a 
situation where Members of Congress and the Senate have said to the 
District of Columbia: No, you cannot do the same. I think that is 
unfair.
  There is a cap on attorney's fees in special education cases. If 
someone is trying to raise a child with a serious learning disability 
and wants that child in a special ed program, we have provisions in the 
law across America in terms of access to those programs and who will 
pay for the attorney's fees. It is only in the District of Columbia 
that some Members of Congress want to limit the amount paid to those 
attorneys to no more than $1,300 per case. It is basically unfair to do 
it only in the District of Columbia. The same Congressmen and Senators 
would never impose that limitation on their own States and districts.
  My friends, those and many others are riders which I find 
objectionable. They are clear evidence of excess on the part of the 
conferees--primarily on the House side--who have insisted on keeping 
these provisions in place. I am going to vote against this bill. I 
refuse to sign the conference report. To my knowledge, I don't believe 
any Democratic Member did. Perhaps one did, I may be mistaken. For the 
most part, the Democrats decided this bill went entirely too far.
  One thing I put in this bill which I hope will have some benefit if 
ultimately the President vetoes it and this 


[[Page 21836]]

provision survives is a 
requirement that the District of Columbia city council and mayor report 
to Congress on some very basic things which we think need to be 
addressed in the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia has 
decided they have so much money they will give away $59 million in tax 
cuts next year. They have declared a dividend in a city with a high 
murder rate, in a city with terrible public health services, a city 
overrun with rats in the street, and a city where the schools are 
deplorable. Despite all of these things, they have said: We have too 
many dollars. We are going to give them away, give them back, $100 to a 
family.
  I think it is more important that families in the District of 
Columbia have protection in their homes, protection in their 
neighborhoods, that visitors to the city feel safe on the streets; that 
enough policemen are hired, and others are brought in to make certain 
that security is there. They are caught up in the notion that a $100 
tax cut for each family will transform the District of Columbia. I 
think they should get to the basics first.
  That is why I requested a quarterly report from the District of 
Columbia to Congress on very basic things, including the reduction in 
crime, providing the basic city services, the application and 
management of Federal grants,



and most importantly, to deal with the problem that children in the 
District of Columbia have been graded by many foundations as being 
worse off than any children in the United States of America.
  When it comes to the basics, low-birthweight babies, infant 
mortality, child death rate, rates of teen death, teen birth rates, 
these things, unfortunately, the District of Columbia is doing worse on 
than any other State in the Nation. Wouldn't it be better to take some 
of the $59 million tax cut and put it back for the benefit of these 
children? I hope this quarterly report will demonstrate that the mayor 
and city council have proven me wrong. If they have, I will gladly 
concede.
  In the meantime, I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side to 
oppose this legislation, to vote no on this appropriations bill, to 
urge the Republican leadership to give a clean bill, send it to the 
President so it can be signed, and the District can continue in their 
efforts to reform this government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to highlight the points the 
Senator from Illinois raised and try to give the view of the majority 
on those points because I think there are some clear differences.
  I appreciate the working relationship that Senator Durbin and I have 
had on this committee. In the main, we have agreed on this bill. I 
think the very positive parts of the bill that I outlined earlier were 
agreed to and enhanced by our ability to work together. I do also want 
to thank the members of his staff, Terry Sauvain and Marianne Upton, 
for working with our staff, Mary Beth Nethercutt and Jim Hyland.
  I think our disagreements have been very open and honest. I will 
address the points the Senator made. I think it should be understood 
why we are doing some of the things that are called riders in this 
bill.
  The District of Columbia belongs to every American. This is our 
Capital City. Every American taxpayer pays for the upkeep of the city. 
We all point to this city, hoping that it represents the best that 
America is. The buildings in this city rival any, anywhere in the 
world. I am proud of the city. That is why, when I was chosen to be the 
chairman of the D.C. Subcommittee, I readily agreed because it is 
important to my constituents in Texas, just as much as it is to the 
people who live here full time. I think we do want to have standards 
that every American believes are the right standards for our Capital 
City.
  Let me take the points that Senator Durbin said he believes the 
President may veto the bill over because these points are in 
disagreement.
  First, the needle exchange program. Yes, it is true we do not allow 
for Government funding or city funding of needle exchanges for clean 
needles for drug abusers. Barry McCaffrey, the drug czar of the United 
States, who is the President's appointee, said the following about 
clean needle exchanges:

       [General McCaffrey has] strongly objected to needle 
     exchange programs.

  In his words:

       The problem is not dirty needles, the problem is heroin 
     addiction. The focus should be on bringing health to this 
     suffering population, not giving them more effective means to 
     continue their addiction. One doesn't want to facilitate this 
     dreadful scourge on mankind.

  That was in the Orlando Sentinel on March 13, 1996.
  Janet Lapey, in the New York Times magazine, said this was probably 
not in the best interests of the people who are suffering from 
addictions. We do put a lot in the District budget to help people with 
drug addictions. We try to take the hard line on drug addiction so 
people who are doing criminal acts in addition to using drugs, some of 
which also are criminal acts in themselves, do not prey on innocent 
citizens.
  In most of the drug needle exchange programs it has been shown that 
it has increased the use of illegal drugs. I think it would be a tragic 
mistake in our Capital City to have a federally funded or locally 
funded needle exchange program that gives any indication that we want 
to foster this habit. We want to help these people get off drugs, not 
make it easier for them to do it with clean needles.
  Second, on the issue of marijuana, it is true this bill does ban 
legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia for any purpose. 
I think it is important that we not have this become a haven for 
marijuana use, even for medicinal purposes, because I don't think we 
should take an illegal drug and allow it to be legalized in our Capital 
City. The majority on the conference committee agreed.

  Last but not least, the other issue I think we have a legitimate 
disagreement on is the voting rights in the District. In the District 
of Columbia, the people do elect a city council and a mayor. We work 
with them because the Federal taxpayers do fund a good part of the 
District of Columbia budget. I think because this is our Capital City 
and because it was provided that the city not be in a State, but, 
rather be overseen by Congress in our Constitution, that most certainly 
we need to take those steps.
  But the issue of having two Senators and a Congressman from the 
District of Columbia should not be decided in a D.C. appropriations 
bill. That is banned, using city funds for that purpose. I stand by 
that.
  Mr. President, I think the time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report accompanying H.R. 2587, the District of Columbia Appropriations 
bill for FY 2000.
  The bill provides $429 million in new budget authority and $389 
million in new outlays for federal contributions to the District of 
Columbia government. When outlays from prior-year budget authority and 
other completed actions are taken into account, the Senate bill totals 
$429 million in budget authority and $393 million in outlays for FY 
2000.
  I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee, 
Senator Hutchison, for her hard work and diligence in fashioning this 
bill. The bill is exactly at the Senate Subcommittee's revised 302(b) 
allocation. The bill is $36 million in budget authority above the 
President's request, due in part to the inclusion of a tuition 
assistance program for D.C. students who attend out-of-state colleges. 
The Administration has requested these funds, however, through the 
Department of Education rather than directly to the District of 
Columbia.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Budget 
Committee scoring of the conference agreement on the District of 
Columbia Appropriations bill be placed in the Record at this point, and 
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 21837]]

 H.R. 2587, D.C. APPROPRIATIONS, 2000--SPENDING COMPARISONS--CONFERENCE
                                 REPORT
               [Fiscal year 2000, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    General
                                    purpose   Crime   Mandatory   Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference report:
  Budget authority...............       429  .......  .........      429
  Outlays........................       393  .......  .........      393
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...............       429  .......  .........      429
  Outlays........................       393  .......  .........      393
1999 level:
  Budget authority...............       621  .......  .........      621
  Outlays........................       616  .......  .........      616
President's request:
  Budget authority...............       393  .......  .........      393
  Outlays........................       393  .......  .........      393
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............       453  .......  .........      453
  Outlays........................       448  .......  .........      448
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............       410  .......  .........      410
  Outlays........................       405  .......  .........      405
 
CONFERENCE REPORT COMPARED TO:
 
Senate 302(b) allocation:
  Budget authority...............  ........  .......  .........  .......
  Outlays........................  ........  .......  .........  .......
1999 level:
  Budget authority...............      -192  .......  .........     -192
  Outlays........................      -223  .......  .........     -223
President's request:
  Budget authority...............        36  .......  .........       36
  Outlays........................  ........  .......  .........  .......
House-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............       -24  .......  .........      -24
  Outlays........................       -55  .......  .........      -55
Senate-passed bill:
  Budget authority...............        19  .......  .........       19
  Outlays........................       -12  .......  .........      -12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an inquiry. Is there time 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The vote has been called for.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.



  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and the Senator from 
Arizona (Mr. McCain), are necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. 
Wellstone), are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) would vote ``no.''
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Torricelli
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Breaux
     Chafee
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     McCain
     Wellstone
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this vote. I 
think it is important that we fund the District at a responsible level. 
I hope the President will look at the merits of this bill and let the 
District have the additional funding that is included. I think the vast 
majority of the people in the leadership of the District realize this 
is a giant step forward not only for the people of the District but for 
every American whose capital this is.

                          ____________________