[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[House]
[Page 23064]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 23064]]

 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE 
          PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 106-135)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following veto 
message from the President of the United


States; which was read and, without objection, referred to the 
Committee on Appropriations and ordered to be printed:

To the House of Representatives:
  I am returning herewith without my approval, H.R. 2587, the 
``District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000.'' Although the bill 
provides important funding for the District of Columbia, I am vetoing 
this bill because it includes a number of highly objectionable 
provisions that are unwarranted intrusions into local citizens' 
decisions about local matters.
  I commend the Congress for developing a bill that includes requested 
funding for the District of Columbia. The bill includes essential 
funding for District Courts and Corrections and the D.C. Offender 
Supervision Agency and goes a long way toward providing requested funds 
for a new tuition assistance program for District of Columbia 
residents. I appreciate the additional funding included in the bill to 
promote the adoption of children in the District's foster care system, 
to support the Children's National Medical Center, to assist the 
Metropolitan Police Department in eliminating open-air drug trafficking 
in the District, and for drug testing and treatment, among other 
programs.
  However, I am disappointed that the Congress has added to the bill a 
number of highly objectionable provisions that would interfere with 
local decisions about local matters. Were it not for these provisions, 
I would sign the bill into law. Many of the Members who voted for this 
legislation represent States and localities that do not impose similar 
restrictions on their own citizens. I urge the Congress to remove the 
following provisions expeditiously to prevent the interruption of 
important funding for the District of Columbia:
  --Voting Representation. H.R. 2587 would prohibit not only the use of 
    Federal, but also District funds to provide assistance for petition 
    drives or civil actions that seek to obtain voting representation 
    in the Congress for residents of the District of Columbia.
  --Limit on Access to Representation in Special Education Cases. The 
    bill would cap the award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in cases 
    brought by parents of District schoolchildren against the District 
    of Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals with Disabilities 
    Education Act (IDEA). In the long run, this provision would likely 
    limit the access of the District's poor families to quality legal 
    representation, thus impairing their due process protections 
    provided by the IDEA.
  --Abortion. The bill would prohibit the use of not only Federal, but 
    also District funds to pay for abortions except in those cases 
    where the life of the mother is endangered or in situations 
    involving rape or incest.
  --Domestic Partners Act. The bill would prohibit the use of not only 
    Federal, but also District funds to implement or enforce the Health 
    Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992.
  --Needle Exchange Programs. The bill contains a ban that would 
    seriously disrupt current AIDS/HIV prevention efforts by 
    prohibiting the use of Federal and local funds for needle exchange 
    programs. H.R. 2587 denies not only Federal, but also District 
    funding to any public or private agency, including providers of 
    HIV/AIDS-related services, in the District of Columbia that uses 
    the public or private agency's own funds for needle exchange 
    programs, undermining the principle of home rule in the District.
  --Controlled Substances. The bill would prohibit the District from 
    legislating with respect to certain controlled substances, in a 
    manner that all States are free to do.
  --Restriction on City Council Salaries. The bill would limit the 
    amount of salary that can be paid to members of the District of 
    Columbia Council.
  I urge the Congress to send me a bill that maintains the important 
funding for the District provided in this bill and that eliminates 
these highly objectionable provisions as well as other provisions that 
undermine the ability of residents of the District of Columbia to make 
decisions about local matters.
                                                  William J. Clinton.  
  The White House, September 28, 1999.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objections of the President will be 
spread at large upon the Journal, and the message and bill will be 
printed as a House document.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, President Clinton has just surrendered in 
America's war against drugs. I'm deeply disturbed by this veto, and 
every parent, teacher and police officer should be, too.
  His veto throws away all the good things this bill does: help D.C. 
kids go to college, get foster kids into permanent homes, clean up the 
foul Anacostia River, crack down on drug offenders, and reduce the size 
of D.C.'s bloated government.
  And for what?
  I'm appalled that the President of the United States would throw away 
all these good things just to support legalizing marijuana.
  This is about legalizing drugs in the nation's capital, and using 
that as a stepping-stone for the rest of the country. Nobody should be 
fooled by the pretense that this is a medical issue. That's a smoke 
screen. Anyone who reads D.C.'s proposed new law knows:
  It wouldn't even require an actual doctor's prescription.
  People who claim they have approval to use marijuana are allowed to 
authorize their friends to grow and keep it for them.
  It even requires government to provide the marijuana in some cases, 
at taxpayers' expense.
  It's wide-open for abuse. It conflicts with our national law making 
marijuana illegal.
  It's also a smokescreen for the President to pretend this is about 
local control. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) puts Congress in 
charge of the laws in D.C. Furthermore, the items of which the 
President complains were all approved by him in last year's bill. They 
are not new. The only new thing is that now D.C. wants to legalize 
marijuana, and President Clinton wants to help them.
  Everyone who cares about combating drugs should be sickened by the 
Clinton veto. You can't have a war on drugs if the President turns the 
nation's capital into a sanctuary. This ends any hope of drug-free 
zones around D.C.'s schools.
  Every police officer, every teacher, and every parent who has ever 
fought against drugs should be crying today. The President is sending 
the worst possible message to our children.
  Not only that, he's exposing our nation's capitol to renewed ridicule 
over drug abuse and hijacking D.C.'s progress on the road to recovery 
from the Marion Barry days. I'm shocked that he would sacrifice 
everything just to promote a pro-drug agenda. Neither the Congress nor 
the country will accept what the President has done.''
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the veto message of the 
President, together with the accompanying bill, H.R. 2587, be referred 
to the Committee on Appropriations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The veto message and the bill will be 
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

                          ____________________