[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25902-25903]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 AGREEING TO CONFERENCE REQUESTED BY SENATE ON H.R. 3064, DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 333 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 333

       Resolved, That the House disagrees to the Senate amendment 
     to the bill (H.R. 3064) 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, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 333 provides that the House disagrees 
to the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R. 3064, the District of 
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, and agrees to a conference with the 
Senate on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is intended to move the appropriations 
process forward. H.R. 3064 was not reported by the Committee on 
Appropriations, therefore no motion to go to conference could be 
authorized by the committee. Usually these motions are approved by 
unanimous consent; however, as their latest attempt to obstruct our 
ability to pass responsible appropriations measures and save the Social 
Security surplus, the minority refused to grant such a request 
yesterday.
  Normally, motions to go to conference require an hour of debate on 
the floor. By calling up this resolution, we have ensured that the 
motion will receive a full and fair debate and the same vote that could 
be requested under regular order. The resolution also does not preclude 
the right of Members to be recognized for another hour of debate on a 
motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, to date, the President has vetoed or threatened to veto 
4 of the 13 appropriations bills representing $133 billion in Federal 
spending. The reason of him vetoing the bills is that they do not spend 
enough. Of course, on the same day, the President regularly gives 
himself credit for the surplus and challenges Congress to preserve the 
Social Security Trust Fund that he himself is trying to spend.

                              {time}  1815

  Rather than issue the daily veto threats to our fiscally responsible 
appropriations bills, we believe the President should help Congress 
preserve Social Security and maintain our balanced budget. I hope that 
this conference will be the first step toward a cooperative budget 
process that will result in a balanced budget and a secure future for 
America's seniors. I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to oppose this rule, since it merely 
enables the House to send the District of Columbia appropriations bill 
to conference. We are well into the fiscal

[[Page 25903]]

year, and it is time to get on with funding the District. However, I do 
want to express my concern that there might be a plan to attach the 
Labor- HHS appropriations to the D.C. bill in conference.
  I want to state unequivocally that the Democratic Members of this 
House will oppose such a move. The District has been held hostage on 
other issues; and now, just as we are getting to the point where there 
might be a bill the President can sign, the Republican majority may be 
increasing the ransom demand. That is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, as 
well as grossly unfair to the residents of this city.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am distressed to read in the papers that the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
Education of the Committee on Appropriations has said that the 
conference on his bill is all but finished. I have to ask how can the 
conference be all but finished when the House has never even considered 
the bill? I appreciate the fact that the subcommittee chairman is 
attempting to move his bill, but might I suggest that regular order 
might be preferable, albeit far more difficult, than this back-room 
wheeling and dealing now taking place.
  It is time to get on with a real appropriations process, Mr. Speaker, 
and to stop playing games. I support moving the District appropriations 
bill to conference, but I will not support any attempt to hold it 
hostage with an appropriations bill the Republican majority will not 
even try to pass on its own in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take any of the 
Members' time, but I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think this conference is going to take long. We 
have had a very good meeting, and we are reaching agreement; and 
basically they are suggestions that we discussed the last time we 
visited this issue on the floor of the House.
  I do hope that that bizarre idea of adding the Labor, Health and 
Human Services appropriations bill to the D.C. appropriations bill is a 
stillborn idea. Obviously, that would seriously complicate things. But 
as long as that does not occur, I think we can dispatch the D.C. 
appropriations bill in very quick order and bring it back to the floor 
and find the kind of agreement, in fact, hopefully unanimous consensus, 
that it is a bill that we can all live with and that the White House 
can sign.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the District 
of Columbia Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000. This legislation 
funds the operations of the federal share for the D.C. government and 
its 600,000 residents, including city government, its social service 
agencies and fire and police departments.
  Unfortunately, the conference reports passed by the Congress the last 
several weeks have been flawed. While they do include several 
provisions I support--prohibiting the use of marijuana for medicinal 
purposes, and the implementation of a needle exchange program for 
illegal drug addicts--they did not contain the level of oversight I 
believe is necessary for the Congress to safeguard the taxpayers money. 
While I disagreed with the Administration's veto for different reasons, 
in particular its support of the needle exchange and marijuana 
programs, I believe it gives us a new opportunity to include more 
accountability for the District's programs.
  The District oversees billions of dollars in housing, education, 
health care and law enforcement programs administered to its residents. 
While improvements have been made in past years, in particular with a 
new police chief and law enforcement operations, problems continue to 
plague its housing and educational facilities. The District's new 
mayor, Anthony Williams, has begun to take steps to put the right 
people in place to make the changes necessary to provide full 
accountability for the federal funds administered by its government, 
and changes are needed. However, until those changes are in place and 
reform has begun, it is incumbent on this Congress to continue in its 
oversight role.
  We know the difficulties that have plagued the District government 
for years--mismanaged housing programs that have resulted in 
dilapidated structures for its public housing residents, and schools 
that have not opened on time because of faulty roof construction, 
leaving thousands of public school students without a place to go 
during the day. We must continue to provide support and oversight to 
see that these long-term problems affecting the District's residents 
are resolved.
  I urge my colleagues to reject any report that does not have 
sufficient oversight so that we can work with the City Government to 
achieve the goals of the new Mayor while providing the nation's 
taxpayers with some assurance their funds are being used to give a new 
direction to their nation's capital city.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair will appoint 
conferees on H.R. 3064 later.

                          ____________________