[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16440-16446]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4942, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 563 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 563

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4942) making appropriations for the government 
     of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
     in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except against section 
     153. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII, pro forma 
     amendments for the purpose of debate, and the amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each amendment printed in the Record may be 
     offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his 
     designee and shall be considered as read. Each amendment 
     printed in the report may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
     the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. The Chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
     during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce 
     to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). 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 563 is a modified open rule providing 
for consideration of H.R. 4942, the District of Columbia Appropriations 
Bill for fiscal year 2001.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and provides for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the 
chairman and the ranking minority member on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations, legislative provisions or reappropriations in an 
appropriations bill, against provisions in the bill except as noted in 
the rule.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments that have been 
preprinted in the Congressional Record and those amendments printed in 
the Committee on Rules report. All points of order are waived against 
the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report.
  These amendments shall be offered by the Member designated in the 
report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill. 
The amendments in the report shall be decreed as read and shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report to be equally divided 
between a proponent and an opponent. Finally, the amendments printed in 
the report shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject 
to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The rule permits the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides a motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions, which is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 563 is a modified open rule, similar to 
those considered for other general appropriations bills. Any Member who 
wishes to offer an amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations 
bill and has preprinted the amendment in the Record will have an 
opportunity to do so.
  In order to better manage the debate, the Committee on Rules has 
structured the debate on four specific amendments. An amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) would reprogram funds 
from a survey of the District's tax policies to help fund Metrorail 
construction.
  Another amendment, to be offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.

[[Page 16441]]

Tiahrt), would prevent needle exchange programs from operating within 
1,000 feet of schools, day care centers, playgrounds, public housing or 
other places where children play and spend time during the day.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) plans to offer an amendment 
to prohibit the use of funds to finance needle exchange programs in the 
District. This language mirrors a provision in the D.C. appropriations 
bill that passed the House last year.
  Finally, an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) 
would prohibit individuals under the age of 18 from possessing tobacco 
in the District. The amendment imposes the same restrictions on tobacco 
use by minors that are in force in most States, including Maryland and 
Virginia.
  Under this rule, the House will have the opportunity to exercise its 
responsibility to address these important social issues facing the 
District. Rather than avoiding controversial issues like needle 
exchanges and tobacco use by minors, Members of this House will be 
accountable to their constituents and the people of the District. I am 
pleased that this open rule will bring these honest policy disputes out 
into the open so that Americans will know where their Representatives 
stand on these issues that affect them right in their towns and 
neighborhoods.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4942 appropriates a total of $414 million in 
Federal funding support for the District. I applaud the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking Member, for their hard 
work to produce this solid legislation. This is a responsible bill that 
makes the Federal Government a partner in D.C. government and helps our 
Nation's Capital move closer to the success and independence that its 
residents deserve.
  On a separate note, this is the last of 13 appropriations bills that 
must be considered each year. The Committee on Appropriations has once 
again performed admirably, working within the responsible budget limits 
while managing the available resources to best serve the American 
people. Congress is on track to have all spending bills complete before 
the end of the fiscal year, having again preserved the Social Security 
surplus, provided tax relief for working Americans, and maintain 
important funding priorities that millions of Americans depend on.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4942 was favorably reported out of the Committee on 
Appropriations, as was this fair rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge 
my colleagues to support the rule so we can proceed with general debate 
and consideration of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia finds itself last, but 
certainly not least, in the appropriations lineup for fiscal year 2001. 
This is the last of 13 appropriations bills, but it is the bill which 
accords the least amount of respect to the residents of this city.

                              {time}  1245

  Year after year, the Republican majority has gone out of its way to 
turn what should be an easy task into an unnecessarily difficult one. 
This year is no different; and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to this rule and in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, last year the D.C. appropriations was considered six 
times before finally becoming the engine that drove the omnibus 
appropriations bill. I must ask, is there a good reason the Republican 
majority seems to want to repeat that exercise again this year?
  The bill is loaded with the usual social riders the Republican 
majority seems willing to impose on the residents of the District, but 
not on their own constituents. Again the bill contains veto bait such 
as barring the District from using its own local funds to provide 
abortion services to low-income residents, or implementing its own 
domestic partnership law.
  But to add insult to injury, this rule makes in order two amendments 
that the delegate from the District of Columbia specifically asked the 
Committee on Rules to deny. These two amendments, one relating to the 
issue of needle exchange and one relating to the sale of tobacco to 
minors, are perennial Republican favorites on this bill. But, Mr. 
Speaker, these are the amendments the elected government of the 
District of Columbia, as well as the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton), oppose.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Rules has pointedly 
through the consideration of 12 appropriation bills denied Members the 
right to offer amendments that required a waiver of clause 2 of Rule 
XXI; but when it comes to the District, the chairman and the Republican 
majority of the committee send out an engraved invitation to any Member 
who has a particular legislative ax to grind.
  Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder the District Government has proposed 
license plates for its residents that proclaim ``Taxation Without 
Representation''?
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for the simple reason that the 
Republican majority has again set up this appropriation for an 
unnecessary protracted legislative debate. I urge my colleagues to vote 
no on this rule and on the bill. Let us put some common sense and some 
respect into this process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
take a moment to point out to my colleague from Texas that no Democrat 
submitted a request for a waiver on amendment. The ones that were 
denied were only Republican amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the 
ranking minority Member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). He 
and I have become very close friends in this body. It does not mean 
like two Irishmen we do not disagree on occasion passionately, but I 
want to thank him. We disagree on some issues in this particular bill. 
I do not agree with everything in the bill; but like everything that 
comes forward in this House, it is a good bill overall.
  The Constitution of the United States of America, and we were all 
sworn and held up our hand to support the Constitution, which says that 
all legislation, all legislation, for the D.C. area, is from this body. 
We were all sworn to uphold that. If we uphold the Constitution of the 
United States, we will support this bill because we are legislating in 
the best interests.
  I would say to my friends on the other side that for 30 years you 
controlled this House, and if you take a look what happened to 
Washington, D.C., in those 30 years of neglect, look at the systems 
that are typical of the United States, you look at education. Members 
of Congress, the President, the Vice President, all send their children 
to private schools. Why? Because the D.C. system has been so terrible.
  But I want to tell you, I have been in some of those schools; and I 
have seen some wonderful dedicated teachers and schools. But where you 
have roofs that are caving in, that the fire department has to shut 
down those schools, that we do not have the support over that 30 years 
for education systems, something is wrong.
  We came in and appointed boards. Another bright light is Mayor 
Williams. He has got a monumental task at hand to get through that 
bureaucracy that he has; but if you look at education and what we have 
done, we fully funded charter schools. When my own party in the last 
Congress wanted to reduce the amount of funds for the public schools, 
we fought, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and I, and said we 
reward schools for going in the right direction. We do not penalize 
them. Together we were able to come up with full funding for the public 
school systems and charter schools. I think that is a positive, and 
that is in this bill as well.
  I look at the economy. When you have month-to-month leases because 
you have got some members in this bureaucracy taking money under the

[[Page 16442]]

table on a month-to-month lease, we fought together to have those 
leases extended so we could get business to invest in Washington, D.C.
  We can make this waterfront the best waterfront in the whole country, 
like San Diego or San Francisco or the others. But you cannot when you 
have got drugs going down there; and we have worked together, not only 
there but to clean up the Anacostia River, the worst river in the 
United States for pollution. The fecal count is the highest in any 
river in the United States. We are working together on a bipartisan 
fashion with the Mayor and on both sides to fix that. These are very 
positive things that we are working on.
  But I would say to my friend that there are things in this bill that 
I disagree with, and that my colleagues disagree with; but overall it 
is a good bill, and it moves not only the legislation forward, but in 
the long run it is the best for the D.C. residents. I would ask for 
full support of this.
  I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) for his work 
with the ranking minority Member.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I want to begin as we embark upon the D.C. appropriation by thanking 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for his hard work on this 
bill. The gentleman and I have had disagreements on this bill, but I 
appreciate his efforts to work out some of those disagreements with me. 
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for his strong 
advocacy and work for the District as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose a rule shot through with financial, 
operational, and social intrusions that should concern no one unless 
you happen to be a resident of the District of Columbia. D.C. is once 
again bringing up the rear of the appropriations. Here is hoping that 
the number 13 in the appropriations cycle has nothing to do with bad 
luck.
  This should be the easiest of the 13 appropriation bills. Few Members 
have or should bother to acquire familiarity with the complicated, 
necessarily parochial operations of a big American city that is not 
their own.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule because the bill before us is full of 
avoidable problems any city would have to find objectionable.
  First, movement of available funds from D.C. priorities to others 
chosen by the subcommittee without any consultation with the District.
  Second, movement of riders, and not only social riders, but riders 
that are so old that they are laughably out of date or redundant 
because the provisions are already in the D.C. code or Federal law. 
Anyone scrutinizing the D.C. appropriation would find attachments so 
dated or irrelevant as to cast doubt on the committee's work product.
  With a lot of hard work and sacrifices, the District has emerged from 
insolvency, but the city has no State to fall back on and has urgent 
needs it cannot possibly fund. City officials requested funding from 
the President for some urgent priorities. The White House chose to fund 
just a few of them.
  The city understands, of course, that the subcommittee's 302(b) 
allocation was cut, and, therefore, all the District's priorities could 
not be fully funded. The city fully understands that the shortfall was 
beyond the subcommittee's control. Those funds must, in our judgment, 
be restored. However, at the very least, the District cannot be 
expected to endorse transfer of whatever funds are left over after the 
cuts to items not in the first tier of the city's own urgent 
priorities.
  The White House funded the state functions that are now Federal 
responsibilities and added $66.2 million for priorities negotiated and 
ratified by city officials. A cut of $31 million from the 302(b) 
allocation left only $34.8 million.
  Instead of redistributing the scarce remaining funds to the 
District's stated priorities, $13.85 million for new matters was 
actually added to the D.C. appropriation. How can items be added to an 
appropriation that has been cut? The only way to do this, of course, is 
to cut funding for the priorities the city has stated it must have. 
Yet, new items were added, for example, funding for the Arboretum, a 
Federal facility funded by the Agriculture Department that never before 
has appeared in a D.C. appropriation. Adding new items guaranteed that 
the District's priorities would be downgraded and defunded.
  What was left after a combination of cuts and new additions was 
predictable: $7 million instead of $25 million for D.C.'s top economic 
priority, a New York Avenue subway station, now in great jeopardy; $14 
million instead of $17 million for the D.C. College Access Act, despite 
a letter from Mayor Williams requesting funding for juniors and seniors 
previously excluded only because it was erroneously thought there would 
be insufficient funding. The subcommittee says to the District, pay for 
critical items like the New York Avenue Metro station, not from Federal 
funds, but from interest on D.C. funds held by the Control Board.
  This requirement remains in the bill, despite a letter from the 
Control Board Chair, Alice Rivlin, that says that such funds no longer 
exist, but, to quote her words, ``have already been included by the 
District as a source of funds to support governmental operations.''
  The requirement to pay for the subway from interest remains in the 
bill, despite the fact that D.C. could never pay for the great majority 
of a subway station's cost itself and was able to make a commitment to 
use its own funds for a station only because the OMB and the private 
sector had each committed to pick up one-third of the cost.
  Mayor Williams wrote to Chairman Istook: ``In the case of the New 
York Avenue Metro, the reduction in Federal funds has sent a chilling 
message to the business community who have expressed interested in 
bringing business to the District. The $22 million cut greatly imperils 
the District's ability to secure the private funds that were to be 
leveraged by the public allocation. Local businesses have made 
investments in the city based on this project. Without full funding, 
the success of this effort is jeopardized. I urge you to restore full 
funding.''
  It is one thing for the subcommittee to make cuts; it is quite 
another for the subcommittee to nullify the District's carefully 
thought-out priorities. Adding funding controversy to the attachments 
disputes that always surround this appropriation has not helped this 
bill, for we also will waste a lot of time discussing riders today. It 
is wasted time because, in the end, the riders have caused a veto of 
the bill; and to get the bill signed at all, they are removed or 
substantially changed.
  The chairman indicated these riders simply reflected those 
transmitted by the President from prior years. OMB has worked with the 
District to remove riders from prior years that are outdated, no longer 
relevant or are already included in D.C. or Federal law; and the city 
has moved to make other riders permanent that should be permanent a 
part of D.C. law. The Chair must prefer long and wasteful debates, 
because he has reinserted into the bill not only the very few that were 
social riders, but all the redundant, outdated, and irrelevant riders 
as well.
  What is the point, if we ever were striving to get a bill that could 
be signed? When even steps to remove patently irrelevant material 
provokes disagreement, we seem well on our way to a veto of the D.C. 
bill.
  I had hoped for better this year. Please oppose this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to 
speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which enables us to go 
forward with this bill which, in addition to the District of Columbia's 
own tax revenue, and budget allocates $414 million from the taxpayers 
in the rest of the United States of America to the District of 
Columbia.

[[Page 16443]]



                              {time}  1300

  Now one might have thought, from listening to people, that we are not 
doing anything for the District of Columbia, and here is $414 million, 
Federal money from the rest of the country, not going to New York City, 
not going to Chicago or Los Angeles or Oklahoma City, we do not make 
direct appropriations to those communities or to any others, only the 
District of Columbia. This is in addition to its own tax revenues and 
budget, in addition to qualifying for Federal grants from all sorts of 
other sources. In addition to those, the District of Columbia gets $414 
million directly from the Federal Government. We do it year after year. 
Why? Because the District of Columbia is not just another city. It is 
the Nation's capital, so designated in the United States Constitution.
  As the Nation's Capital, it has a very different relationship.
  Now, I heard the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) in this House say, and I think these were the words, that what 
happens here should not concern anyone not a resident of D.C., and said 
people should not be concerned with a city not their own. If that were 
the case, we would not be talking about $414 million for Washington, 
D.C., but we are because Washington, D.C. is not just another city.
  The Constitution specifies it is the Capital of the United States of 
America, and as the Capital it has a distinct position. Article I, 
section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says that exclusive control over all 
legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for the District of Columbia 
resides right here in the Congress of the United States, because the 
Founding Fathers knew that the Nation's Capital would be distinct, 
would be different.
  One thing they wanted to be sure was that the Nation's Capital was in 
harmony with the rest of the country. We do not want one thing going on 
in what is supposed to symbolize and represent America that is totally 
foreign to the rest of the country. We do not want one set of standards 
in the Nation's Capital that is inconsistent with Federal law or that 
is inconsistent with the values of the Nation.
  So to create that consistency, the Constitution says legislative 
control over the Nation's city belongs to the Nation.
  I realize that is difficult sometimes for people that live here to 
recognize why it is set up that way, but to say that this should not 
concern people who are not residents or this is a city that does not 
belong to the rest of the country, I have to disagree. When one comes 
here and they see the best of Washington, they visit the Capitol, they 
see the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the Jefferson 
Memorial, the new memorials to FDR, to Korean veterans, the Vietnam 
veterans, the one underway for World War II veterans, they see those 
things and they get a sense, they get an inspiration from it. Then to 
be told, oh, no, they are not a part of this, this is not their city, 
sure it is. It is the Nation's city.
  That is why we do things and will do things here today, to try to 
make sure that Washington, D.C. is in harmony with the Nation. If we 
are not the Nation's city would we have the hundreds of thousands of 
people that are employed here because the Federal Government is located 
here? No, the District of Columbia would not have that guarantee of 
employment, of revenue, of opportunity that comes with it. It would not 
enjoy that.
  The District also would not have the burdens that come with it; the 
Presidential inauguration, for example, coming up. One of the things in 
this bill is approximately $6 million to reimburse D.C. for special 
expenses that it will have when the presidential inauguration occurs, 
the security needs, all the influx of Americans coming here for the 
presidential inaugural. Now some cities would be saying, hey, that is 
great for business, that is great for tourism; we do not need the extra 
money to pay for these additional costs; that revenue itself is going 
to be enough.
  We have not taken that approach with D.C. We have said they have an 
extra burden. We want to help them with it. So some of the money which 
the gentlewoman complains about, and says I wish it were applied some 
place else, is to reimburse the District of Columbia for this expense 
when they have to have all of the overtime, all the extra work by their 
transit people, their public safety people, their people that work with 
waste disposal, with cleaning up afterward. It is a big expense, and we 
are trying to be responsible in taking care of that.
  Washington, D.C., in addition to $414 million of Federal money from 
the rest of the country under this bill, still qualifies the same as 
any other municipality and school district in the Nation to receive 
Federal grants, Federal assistance, Federal funds that help their 
schools. In addition, they get transportation grants.
  One of the riders of which the gentlewoman complains is to improve 
the ability of Washington, D.C. to fully qualify for grants from the 
Environmental Protection Agency, because they do have pollution 
problems, especially the Anacostia River. We provided special funding 
to help with cleaning that up. We are doing these things because we do 
believe Washington, D.C. belongs to all of us. We do not all live here. 
There is a difference between people who live here and people who do 
not, but that difference is not to say that the Nation's Capital does 
not belong to all of us. It does belong to all of us. It must belong to 
all of us, and if we want to have pride in the country we have to have 
pride and confidence in what is happening in Washington, D.C.
  If we find out that the District is going off in a totally different 
direction and thereby become the symbol for the whole country, we have 
to make sure that it is in tune instead. So sometimes the local 
officials do things and Congress says, no. If you were in New York, if 
you were Chicago, if you were Detroit, if you were Phoenix, if you were 
Tampa, if you were Wisconsin's Madison, any of these other communities, 
we would not do that because they are not the Nation's Capital.
  They do not belong to all of us, but we will do some things 
differently.
  This rule makes in order an opportunity to consider those things, and 
Members have had the opportunity to present them.
  Now I heard the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) say, well, we have riders on the bill and some of them have 
been there too long. Well, what was not mentioned was we went through 
and we dropped 25 provisions that have been carried year after year 
after year after year in this bill that we did not see where they 
served any further purpose. We knocked out 25 of them.
  Now, are there some others that still need to go? We are going to 
look at them and continue to make deletions as we go through the 
process. If something is actually outdated or covered by some other 
provision of law, we will continue working with people to do that. But 
the ones that remain are the ones in harmony with what I have 
explained, that distinct relationship between the Nation's Capital and 
the Nation. It is not just another city.
  We have in this bill, and this is a program adopted last year, we 
have in this bill millions of dollars to provide assistance to any 
student who has graduated from public school, or private school for 
that matter, in the District of Columbia. I think the cutoff date is 
since 1998. This program provides them assistance up to $10,000 a year 
to go to college. We have not done that for any other community in the 
country.
  We think there are good reasons why we have set it up, because there 
is not a State education system and there are definitely education 
problems, major ones, here in the District of Columbia. That program 
was started last year and every penny necessary for every student who 
qualifies is fully funded in this bill, plus a reserve fund of about an 
extra 12 percent.
  We hear people say but the President requested more. Well, last year 
we appropriated $17 million for the program. Guess what? Now that we 
have had a year to get the program in motion to find out how much it 
really costs, we found out that $14 million does the job.

[[Page 16444]]

So there is a $3 million carryover. So we do not need to appropriate as 
much next year, but we have still gone 12 percent beyond what they 
figured they needed next year just to be sure.
  Just because we do not give the same amount of money as the President 
requests does not justify coming here and saying, oh, our budget is 
being cut. No, that simply is not true. We are not cutting a single 
penny from the budget submitted by the District of Columbia with the 
control board that has been helping it out with oversight. Not a single 
penny is cut from their budget. We have approved their budget, and we 
have $414 million of Federal money beyond that.
  The Federal Government, a couple of years ago, assumed new 
responsibilities. We are in charge of funding the court system. We are 
in charge of funding the probation and parole services. We are in 
charge of funding the prison system. That consumes most of the $414 
million, and we fund that in here.
  Yes, sometimes Federal agencies submit budgets to us, and we make 
adjustments, but we have not adjusted the District's own budget.
  Now let us talk about this Metro station. We have put over $7 million 
of Federal money in this bill and allocated an additional $18 million 
from an account where the District deposits funds it gets from the 
Federal government and collects interest on those and other funds. We 
have said they can use the rest. Last year it was Congress that made 
the decision on how to use that same fund, to assist the District with 
buy-outs of its employees because they have a big problem with too many 
workers not doing enough work. To try to reduce the size of the work 
force the Mayor, Anthony Williams, who is a good man and a good mayor, 
says he needs to reduce the size by buying out people's contracts. And 
we provided money from the same fund last year, done by this Congress, 
to help them with what the Mayor said was his top priority.
  This year, we are told the top priority is the Metro station, we said 
fine, we will make that money available from that same fund for the 
Metro station, and suddenly we are told, oh, we are meddling; that they 
should not have to use that fund for the metro construction.
  Contrary to what has been claimed by some people before, that fund is 
not part of the District's budget. The District has not put any budget 
here that says this is a part of our budget to spend it. What they have 
done, since we said we will put it on their top priority then, they 
have come up with a laundry list and say, oh, we want to spend it on 
some different things instead. Some of those things are bonuses for 
people working in the Mayor's office. Some of those things are 
severance pay, perhaps golden parachutes, for this control board that 
has been helping with the fiscal responsibility in helping D.C. get its 
budget back in balance, which they have done and they deserve a lot of 
credit for that, both D.C. and the control board, because they were in 
deficit for so many years and now they are in their 4th year of having 
a budget surplus; and we want that to continue.
  As this control board goes out of existence, they want to double 
their budget in their last year, double their budget in their last 
year. They want to go into this fund, which we say ought to go to the 
New York Avenue Metro station, and they say no, we ought to help double 
the budget in the last year for the control board so we can have all of 
these real nice severance pay packages for them.
  That is what this debate is about. We have funded the priorities of 
the District. Every penny that is necessary for what has been 
authorized in this college assistance program is in the bill, paid for. 
We have provided the money for the New York Avenue Metro station. Now 
we were told those are the top two priorities, and we have been 
responsible and handled them responsibly. Had this been the top two 
priorities for any other city in the country, do my colleagues think 
they would get a direct Federal appropriation for it like this? No. 
They might qualify for Federal assistance through different grant 
programs and apply for this and so forth, but they would not just get 
it handed to them on a silver platter, saying because they are 
Washington, D.C. we are going to do something more for them. We are 
trying to be responsible and do that, and it really galls me to hear 
some people in the District griping; ``well, this is being done for us 
but we want more.''
  The rest of the country does not appreciate that. The rest of the 
country, if they see somebody from Washington, D.C. in their State and 
the license plate says ``Washington, D.C., taxation without 
representation,'' what will they think? Something very different than 
people in the District will think. Others around the country will 
think, yes, they are taking my money and I am not getting enough 
representation for it.
  Let us have some perspective here. We have a special responsibility 
for the Capital of the United States of America. It has severe drug 
problems. It has severe crime problems. It has some decrepit public 
schools that need improvement for the future of our kids. It has major 
management problems and a huge bureaucracy that has more confusion and 
more complexity than the Federal bureaucracy, but still it is the 
Nation's Capital and we are doing things trying to help D.C. come back 
and rebound.

                              {time}  1315

  And I hear people come up on this Floor and try to pretend, oh, you 
are not doing this and you are not doing that. Take a look at what we 
are doing. This is a good bill. It deserves support from every Member 
of this body. It deserves support from people who say, I do not want to 
give money to Washington, D.C., because I do not like a lot of the 
things they do there. I understand that; I do not like a lot of things 
the District does either. But it is the Nation's Capital; it was set up 
differently under the Constitution. They do not get the same tax base 
that some people do because of all of the Federal land here.
  There are restrictions on construction, for example, of high-rise 
buildings that do not exist elsewhere, because of national security 
issues. The District is different. We should be helping the District, 
whether one is on the right, or on the left, or in the middle. We are 
doing the right thing with this bill. Because it gives us a fair chance 
to consider the differences, the rule should be adopted, and the bill 
as well.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Chair notes a disturbance in 
the gallery in contravention of the law and the Rules of the House. The 
Sergeant at Arms will remove those persons responsible for the 
disturbance and restore order to the gallery.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be rejected.
  Let me first say to the chairman of the subcommittee, I appreciate 
his feelings that are inspired by the Federal monuments, whether it be 
the F.D.R. Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, the Washington Monument, or 
the Lincoln Memorial. Of course, that is all on Federal land, it is 
owned by the Federal Government, it is run by the Interior Department 
through the National Park Service. That is not at issue here.
  What we are talking about here is the people who live within the 
District of Columbia who buy their own home, who are responsible for 
maintaining their own property, who elect their own representatives, 
and would like their representatives to be able to represent them, but 
would not like the Congress necessarily to be overruling their elected 
representatives, because they have no democratic right to hold us 
accountable, and that is the problem with this bill. The legitimately 
elected representatives of the District of Columbia are being 
overridden by Members of Congress who will never be held accountable 
for what they do to the District of Columbia.
  In terms of the budget, we made a deal back in 1997. Basically, 
because

[[Page 16445]]

the District of Columbia has no State to support it, there are certain 
functions that we agreed we would pick up, and those functions are 
being shortchanged in this bill to the tune of $31 million. The bill is 
even $22 million less than last year's level. For those reasons, plus 
four specific reasons, I think this rule should be rejected.
  First of all, it protects four Republican amendments, which are all 
of the Republican amendments that were offered. Those Republican 
amendments, if they were treated the same way as the Democratic 
amendments, would be subject to a point of order. The Democratic 
amendments are all subject to a point of order. The gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) wanted to offer a ``Democracy'' 
amendment. I think she has some very compelling arguments, and I 
totally agree with those arguments; but they are going to be ruled out 
of order. We cannot bring them up, we cannot get a vote on them, 
because they are not protected. Why? Because they were Democratic 
amendments.
  Secondly, two of these Republican amendments that could have been 
ruled out of order are wholly contrary to what we would do to our own 
citizens in the jurisdictions that we are legitimately elected to 
represent. The Tiahrt needle exchanges amendment inserts new language 
that will kill the District's private needle exchange program that is 
run by a local nonprofit organization. It negates it. We are going to 
show that. It means that, despite what the House full Committee on 
Appropriations did, this program, run by a private organization, will 
not be able to operate. No Federal and no local public funds are 
involved in this program, and yet we are going to ensure that it cannot 
even operate.
  The Bilbray smoking amendment would impose Federal penalties and 
sanctions on children caught smoking. That is a well-intentioned thing 
to do, but no other jurisdiction in this country faces a similar 
Federal penalty for children caught smoking. We would never do that to 
any district we represent. It is clearly legislating on an 
appropriations bill. There is not one Member of this body that would 
impose this restriction on any citizen that elects them directly to 
represent them.
  Third, it protects the bill against a point of order that could be 
raised against a whole host of provisions in this bill that are 
legislating on an appropriations and have no business in an 
appropriations bill. We do not have those type of legislative 
restrictions on any other appropriations bills. They are punitive 
provisions put in to fix one-time situations and left in there.
  Lastly, these amendments are a clear violation of the spirit of 
District home rule, offering amendments that prohibit the District from 
implementing local initiatives where no Federal funds are involved. It 
is an abuse of congressional power. With the passage of the 1997 D.C. 
Revitalization Act that eliminated direct Federal payments to the 
district, the context and circumstances with which Congress might have 
justified past intervention is now gone. Federal taxpayer funds are not 
involved, we should not be involved, and that means we should vote 
against the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
rule so we can begin the important debate on the Washington, D.C. 
Appropriations bill for 2001.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery 
in contravention of the law and the Rules of the House. The Sergeant at 
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and 
restore order to the gallery.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes a disturbance in the gallery 
in contravention of the law and Rules of the House. The Sergeant at 
Arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and 
restore order to the gallery.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 203, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 442]

                               YEAS--217

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

                               NAYS--203

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey

[[Page 16446]]


     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton
     Cubin
     Ewing
     Gilman
     Granger
     Jenkins
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Lewis (CA)
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Roemer
     Smith (WA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1344

  Messrs. KUCINICH, CROWLEY and THOMPSON of California and Mrs. MALONEY 
of New York, Ms. BROWN of Florida and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan and Mr. SHOWS changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea''.
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker I was unavoidably detained by official 
business and unable to vote on H. Res. 563. I would have voted against 
H. Res. 563 (rollcall No. 442).

                          ____________________