[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16465-16479]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 563 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4942.

                              {time}  1528


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 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, with Mr. LaHood in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
bill was open from pages 41 line 1 through page 41 line 3.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the 
chairman or ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their 
designees for the purpose of debate, the amendments printed in House 
Report 106-790, and the following additional amendments, which shall be 
debatable for the time specified, 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 a division of the question:
  One, the additional amendment printed in the Congressional Record and 
numbered 23, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes; and
  Two, the additional amendment printed in the Congressional Record and 
numbered 13, which shall be debatable for 10 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 102. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all 
     vouchers covering expenditures of appropriations contained in 
     this Act shall be audited before payment by the designated 
     certifying official, and the vouchers as approved shall be 
     paid by checks issued by the designated disbursing official.
       Sec. 103. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified 
     within an appropriation for particular purposes or objects of 
     expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified, shall 
     be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for 
     said purpose or object rather than an amount set apart 
     exclusively therefor.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations in this Act shall be available, 
     when authorized by the Mayor, for allowances for privately 
     owned automobiles and motorcycles used for the performance of 
     official duties at rates established by the Mayor: Provided, 
     That such rates shall not exceed the maximum prevailing rates 
     for such vehicles as prescribed in the Federal Property 
     Management Regulations 101-7 (Federal Travel Regulations).

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 53 line 14 be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill from page 41, line 24, through 
page 53 line 14 is as follows:

       Sec. 105. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of 
     organizations concerned with the work of the District of 
     Columbia government, when authorized by the Mayor: Provided, 
     That in the case of the Council of the District of Columbia, 
     funds may be expended with the authorization of the chair of 
     the Council.
       Sec. 106. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have 
     been entered against the District of Columbia government: 
     Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be 
     construed as modifying or affecting the provisions of section 
     11(c)(3) of title XII of the District of Columbia Income and 
     Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (70 Stat. 78; Public Law 84-460; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
       Sec. 107. (a) Requiring Mayor to Maintain Index.--Effective 
     with respect to fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall maintain an 
     index of all employment personal services and consulting 
     contracts in effect on behalf of the District government, and 
     shall include in the index specific information on any 
     severance clause in effect under any such contract.
       (b) Public Inspection.--The index maintained under 
     subsection (a) shall be kept available for public inspection 
     during regular business hours.
       (c) Contracts Exempted.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     with respect to any collective bargaining agreement or any 
     contract entered into pursuant to such a collective 
     bargaining agreement.
       (d) District Government Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``District government'' means the government of the District 
     of Columbia, including--
       (1) any department, agency or instrumentality of the 
     government of the District of Columbia;
       (2) any independent agency of the District of Columbia 
     established under part F of title IV of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act or any other agency, board, or 
     commission established by the Mayor or the Council;
       (3) the Council of the District of Columbia;
       (4) any other agency, public authority, or public benefit 
     corporation which has the authority to receive monies 
     directly or indirectly from the District of Columbia (other 
     than monies received from the sale of goods, the provision of 
     services, or the loaning of funds to the District of 
     Columbia); and
       (5) the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority.
       (e) No payment shall be made pursuant to any such contract 
     subject to subsection (a), nor any severance payment made 
     under such contract, if a copy of the contract has not been 
     filed in the index. Interested parties may file copies of 
     their contract or severance agreement in the index on their 
     own behalf.
       Sec. 108. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 109. No funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     District of Columbia government for the operation of 
     educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or 
     for other educational purposes may be used to permit, 
     encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political 
     activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the 
     availability of school buildings for the use of any community 
     or partisan political group during non-school hours.
       Sec. 110. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the 
     District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade, 
     salary, past work experience, and salary history are not 
     available for inspection by the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on the District of 
     Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform, the 
     Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
     Restructuring and the District of Columbia of the Senate 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Council of the 
     District of Columbia, or their duly authorized 
     representative.
       Sec. 111. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making payments authorized by the District of Columbia 
     Revenue Recovery Act of 1977 (D.C. Law 2-20; D.C. Code, sec. 
     47-421 et seq.).
       Sec. 112. No part of this appropriation shall be used for 
     publicity or propaganda purposes

[[Page 16466]]

     or implementation of any policy including boycott designed to 
     support or defeat legislation pending before Congress or any 
     State legislature.
       Sec. 113. At the start of the fiscal year, the Mayor shall 
     develop an annual plan, by quarter and by project, for 
     capital outlay borrowings: Provided, That within a reasonable 
     time after the close of each quarter, the Mayor shall report 
     to the Council of the District of Columbia and the Congress 
     the actual borrowings and spending progress compared with 
     projections.
       Sec. 114. The Mayor shall not borrow any funds for capital 
     projects unless the Mayor has obtained prior approval from 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, by resolution, 
     identifying the projects and amounts to be financed with such 
     borrowings.
       Sec. 115. The Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed 
     for capital projects for the operating expenses of the 
     District of Columbia government.
       Sec. 116. None of the funds provided under this Act to the 
     agencies funded by this Act, both Federal and District 
     government agencies, that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2001, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for an 
     agency through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates 
     new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or 
     responsibility center; (3) establishes or changes allocations 
     specifically denied, limited or increased by Congress in the 
     Act; (4) increases funds or personnel by any means for any 
     program, project, or responsibility center for which funds 
     have been denied or restricted; (5) reestablishes through 
     reprogramming any program or project previously deferred 
     through reprogramming; (6) augments existing programs, 
     projects, or responsibility centers through a reprogramming 
     of funds in excess of $1,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is 
     less; or (7) increases by 20 percent or more personnel 
     assigned to a specific program, project or responsibility 
     center; unless the Appropriations Committees of both the 
     Senate and House of Representatives are notified in writing 
     30 days in advance of any reprogramming as set forth in this 
     section.
       Sec. 117. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of the District of Columbia government.
       Sec. 118. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to procure passenger 
     automobiles as defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act 
     of 1980 (94 Stat. 1824; Public Law 96-425; 15 U.S.C. 
     2001(2)), with an Environmental Protection Agency estimated 
     miles per gallon average of less than 22 miles per gallon: 
     Provided, That this section shall not apply to security, 
     emergency rescue, or armored vehicles.
       Sec. 119. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     provisions of the District of Columbia Government 
     Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Law 2-139; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), enacted pursuant to section 
     422(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat. 
     790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(3)), shall 
     apply with respect to the compensation of District of 
     Columbia employees: Provided, That for pay purposes, 
     employees of the District of Columbia government shall not be 
     subject to the provisions of title 5, United States Code.
       Sec. 120. No later than 30 days after the end of the first 
     quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council 
     of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 2001 revenue 
     estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 
     2001. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002. The officially 
     revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear 
     report.
       Sec. 121. No sole source contract with the District of 
     Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or 
     extended without opening that contract to the competitive 
     bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District 
     of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. Law 6-85; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 1-1183.3), except that the District of 
     Columbia government or any agency thereof may renew or extend 
     sole source contracts for which competition is not feasible 
     or practical: Provided, That the determination as to whether 
     to invoke the competitive bidding process has been made in 
     accordance with duly promulgated rules and procedures and 
     said determination has been reviewed and approved by the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority.
       Sec. 122. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-
     177), the term ``program, project, and activity'' shall be 
     synonymous with and refer specifically to each account 
     appropriating Federal funds in this Act, and any 
     sequestration order shall be applied to each of the accounts 
     rather than to the aggregate total of those accounts: 
     Provided, That sequestration orders shall not be applied to 
     any account that is specifically exempted from sequestration 
     by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       Sec. 123. In the event a sequestration order is issued 
     pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037: Public Law 99-177), after the 
     amounts appropriated to the District of Columbia for the 
     fiscal year involved have been paid to the District of 
     Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall pay to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury, within 15 days after receipt 
     of a request therefor from the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     such amounts as are sequestered by the order: Provided, That 
     the sequestration percentage specified in the order shall be 
     applied proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation 
     accounts in this Act that are not specifically exempted from 
     sequestration by such Act.
       Sec. 124. (a) An entity of the District of Columbia 
     government may accept and use a gift or donation during 
     fiscal year 2001 if--
       (1) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift 
     or donation: Provided, That the Council of the District of 
     Columbia may accept and use gifts without prior approval by 
     the Mayor; and
       (2) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its 
     authorized functions or duties.
       (b) Each entity of the District of Columbia government 
     shall keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance 
     and use of any gift or donation under subsection (a) of this 
     section, and shall make such records available for audit and 
     public inspection.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``entity of 
     the District of Columbia government'' includes an independent 
     agency of the District of Columbia.
       (d) This section shall not apply to the District of 
     Columbia Board of Education, which may, pursuant to the laws 
     and regulations of the District of Columbia, accept and use 
     gifts to the public schools without prior approval by the 
     Mayor.
       Sec. 125. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for 
     salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the 
     offices of United States Senator or United States 
     Representative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia 
     Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979 (D.C. 
     Law 3-171; D.C. Code, sec. 1-113(d)).
       Sec. 126. (a) The University of the District of Columbia 
     shall submit to the Mayor, the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority and the 
     Council of the District of Columbia no later than 15 calendar 
     days after the end of each quarter a report that sets forth--
       (1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
     date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year 
     expenditure projections versus budget broken out on the basis 
     of control center, responsibility center, and object class, 
     and for all funds, non-appropriated funds, and capital 
     financing;
       (2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center, 
     responsibility center, detailed object, and for all funding 
     sources;
       (3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000 
     annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the 
     budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the 
     basis of control center and responsibility center, and 
     contract identifying codes used by the University of the 
     District of Columbia; payments made in the last quarter and 
     year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total 
     payments made for the contract and any modifications, 
     extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each 
     contract in the last month;
       (4) all reprogramming requests and reports that have been 
     made by the University of the District of Columbia within the 
     last quarter in compliance with applicable law; and
       (5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational 
     structure of the University of the District of Columbia, 
     displaying previous and current control centers and 
     responsibility centers, the names of the organizational 
     entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member 
     supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the 
     structural change.
       (b) The Mayor, the Authority, and the Council shall provide 
     the Congress by February 1, 2001, a summary, analysis, and 
     recommendations on the information provided in the quarterly 
     reports.
       Sec. 127. (a) Nothing in the Federal Grant and Cooperative 
     Agreements Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) may be 
     construed to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency from negotiating and entering into 
     cooperative agreements and grants authorized by law which 
     affect real property of the Federal Government in the 
     District of Columbia if the principal purpose of the 
     cooperative agreement or grant is to provide comparable 
     benefits for Federal and non-Federal properties in the 
     District of Columbia.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to fiscal year 
     2001 and each succeeding fiscal year.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 128. (a) Conditions for Granting Preference in Use of 
     Surplus School Properties to Public Charter Schools.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2209(b)(1)(A) of the District of 
     Columbia School Reform Act

[[Page 16467]]

     of 1995 (sec. 31-2853.19(b)(1)(A), D.C. Code) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``purchase or lease'' and inserting 
     ``purchase, lease-purchase, or lease''; and
       (B) by striking ``, provided that'' and all that follows 
     and inserting a period.
       (2) Property subject to preference.--Section 
     2209(b)(1)(B)(iii) of such Act (sec. 31-
     2853.19(b)(1)(B)(iii), D.C. Code) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(iii) with respect to which the Authority or the Board of 
     Education has transferred jurisdiction to the Mayor at any 
     time prior or subsequent to the date of the enactment of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Procedures for Disposition of Property.--Section 
     2209(b)(1) of such Act (sec. 31-2853.19(b)(1), D.C. Code) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(C) Disposition to public charter schools.--
       ``(i) In general.--Public charter schools shall have the 
     priority right to lease, lease-purchase, or purchase any 
     vacant facility or property described in subparagraph (B), 
     and any facility or property described in subparagraph (B) 
     which is leased or occupied as of the date of the enactment 
     of this subparagraph by an entity other than a public charter 
     school.
       ``(ii) Appraisal of property.--When a public charter school 
     notifies the Mayor of its intention to exercise its rights 
     under clause (i), the Mayor shall obtain within 90 days an 
     independent fair market appraisal of the facility or property 
     based on its current permitted use, and shall transmit a copy 
     of the appraisal to the public charter school. The public 
     charter school shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of 
     the appraisal to enter into a contract for the purchase, 
     lease-purchase, or lease of such facility or property, which 
     time may be extended by mutual agreement. Upon execution of 
     the contract, the public charter school shall have 180 days 
     to complete the acquisition of the property.
       ``(iii) Prices.--

       ``(I) Purchase.--The purchase price of a facility or 
     property described in this clause and in subparagraph (B) 
     shall be the fair market value of the facility or property, 
     less a 25 percent discount.
       ``(II) Lease.--The lease price of a facility or property 
     described in this clause and in subparagraph (B) shall be the 
     price charged by the District of Columbia to other nonprofit 
     organizations leasing public facilities or, if there is no 
     nonprofit rate, fair market value less a 25 percent discount. 
     The price shall be reduced to take into account the value of 
     any improvement to the public school facility or property 
     which is preapproved by the Mayor.
       ``(III) Lease-purchase.--A lease-purchase price of a 
     facility or property described in this clause and in 
     subparagraph (B) shall reflect a 25 percent discount from 
     fair market value, in a manner consistent with subclauses (I) 
     and (II).

       ``(iv) Quarterly report.--On January 1, April 1, July 1, 
     and October 1 of each calendar year, the Mayor shall publish 
     a report describing the status of each facility or property 
     described in subparagraph (B), including the date of 
     expiration of the lease term or right of occupancy, if any, 
     and the date, if any, each facility or property was or will 
     be put out for bid or transferred to a District of Columbia 
     agency, if any. The Mayor shall deliver such report to each 
     eligible chartering authority and shall publish it in the 
     District of Columbia register.
       ``(D) Disposition of facilities or properties after 
     exclusive period.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Mayor may put out for bid to the 
     public or transfer to a District of Columbia agency for the 
     use of such agency any facility or property described in this 
     subparagraph (B) which was not acquired by a public charter 
     school pursuant to subparagraph (C).
       ``(ii) Notice.--At least 90 days prior to putting any such 
     facility property out for bid or transferring it to a 
     District of Columbia agency, the Mayor shall notify each 
     eligible chartering authority in writing of his intention to 
     do so.
       ``(iii) Public charter school right to acquire before bid 
     or transfer.--Prior to the expiration of the 90-day notice 
     period described in clause (ii), a public charter school may 
     purchase, lease-purchase, or lease any facility or property 
     described in the notice under the terms described in clause 
     (iii) of subparagraph (C).
       ``(iv) Public charter school right to match bid.--With 
     regard to any facility or property offered for bid under this 
     subparagraph, the Mayor shall notify each eligible chartering 
     authority in writing within 5 days of the amount of the 
     highest acceptable bid. A public charter school may purchase, 
     lease-purchase, or lease such facility or property by 
     submitting a bid for the facility or property within 30 
     business days of receipt by each eligible chartering 
     authority of such notice. The cost of acquisition shall be as 
     described in clause (iii) of subparagraph (C).
       ``(v) Facilities or properties not put out for bid or 
     transferred.--A public charter school shall have the right to 
     purchase, lease-purchase, or lease, under the terms described 
     in clause (iii) of subparagraph (C), any facility or property 
     described in this paragraph that has not been put out for bid 
     or transferred to a District of Columbia agency by the Mayor 
     as provided for in this subparagraph.''.
       (c) Preferences for Use of Current Property.--Section 
     2209(b)(2) of such Act (sec. 31-2853.19(b)(2), D.C. Code) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking ``purposes,'' and 
     inserting ``purposes directly related to its mission,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Preference described.--A public charter school shall 
     have first priority to lease, or otherwise contract for the 
     use of, any property described in subparagraph (B), at a rate 
     which does not exceed the rate charged a private nonprofit 
     entity for the use of a comparable property of the District 
     of Columbia public schools and which is reduced to take into 
     account the value of repairs or improvements made to the 
     facility or property by the public charter school.''.
       (d) Exercise of Preferences by Other Entities.--Section 
     2209(b) of such Act (sec. 31-2853.19(b), D.C. Code) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Exercise of preference by certain other entities.--A 
     public charter school may delegate to a nonprofit, tax-exempt 
     organization in the District of Columbia the public charter 
     school's authority under this subsection.''.


           Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 printed in the Congressional Record 
     offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
       Strike sections 128 and 129 (and redesignate the succeeding 
     provisions accordingly).

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason for doing this is we want to strike sections 
128 and 129. The reason is that the District of Columbia is already on 
the leading edge of the charter school movement throughout the country. 
It is reforming its schools. In fact, it had an enrollment increase of 
over 100 percent in the last year. Mayor Williams has seen to it that 
the funding has increased by 300 percent to $77 million for charter 
schools. That is good. That is what we want.
  The Center for Washington Area Studies reported that D.C. charter 
schools funding is among the most generous in the entire Nation in 
terms of per-pupil expenditures. Unfortunately, these two provisions 
could potentially jeopardize both that funding and the positive impact 
which charter schools are having because it substantially reduces the 
authority of local elected officials to determine the best use of 
surplus school properties. It was done without consultation with the 
Mayor or the school board or local elected officials.
  So passage of these provisions is going to have a very serious effect 
potentially upon homeless shelters, alternative education programs, the 
Metropolitan Police Department, because these organizations, these 
services are using surplus school properties.
  These amendments say any charter school can go in and buy these 
surplus school properties at 25 percent less than market even if they 
are occupied. So potentially, one could displace the Commission on 
Mental Health which operates a clinic at the Addison School, the Center 
of Hope which leases Keene School, the Commission on Mental Health 
which operates a children's program at the Reno School, the homeless 
shelters at Madison School in Old Emery, the Police Department at 
Petworth School.
  I have got all kinds of examples here that could be displaced if any 
charter school wants to come in and buy these surplus properties. They 
can get it at 25 percent discount on all leases, sales and lease sales. 
That means that the District of Columbia could lose $48 million from 
the market value of this property. That is why the Mayor does not want 
this.

[[Page 16468]]

  This does not make sense. We would not want it if we were mayor. Why 
would one lose that kind of money? We want to cooperate with charter 
schools. We are strongly in favor of charter schools. D.C. is doing a 
good job on charter schools. But this could really impede its efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. That is exactly even, Mr. Chairman, and that 
is what we want.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I am a strong supporter of charter schools. This city has more 
charter schools than any other jurisdiction in the United States. It 
has been very generous with them.
  Some residents went around our mayor and came up here to get this 
amendment. I believe Mr. Peabody and Mr. Patten. There may be others. 
If they were having trouble with the District, they have now had a 
meeting with the District, they should have come to me or someone else. 
Instead, what we get is a heavy-handed amendment that this House could 
never, never, at least if it is a market-driven House, could never 
approve. It slaps a huge compelled nonmarket-driven reduction on 
property without knowing where the property is or what it is worth and 
otherwise directs how properties should be disposed of. We do not do 
that in a free economy. We do not do that in a market-driven economy.
  The District has very scarce resources precisely because the Federal 
Government takes up all of the space. Mayor Williams wrote to the 
chairman saying, ``I am opposed to language concerning disposition of 
surplus school property that would hamper the District Government's 
ability to utilize its assets to reform our schools.''
  This amendment is big-time overkill to tell the City how much it 
should sell property for, how much it should reduce property to. Some 
of it should be reduced to nothing; some of it should be reduced very 
little. None of us in this body knows.
  I arranged a meeting when I learned of this problem. I understand 
that the City itself is going to deal with this and it should have it 
dealt with within a month. I hope that by the time we get to 
conference, the chairman will see fit to withdraw this, because I think 
the matter shall have already been taken care of.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, as 
well as reserving a point of order.
  What is happening with charter schools in the District of Columbia is 
that parents and students are flocking to them because they offer an 
escape from the bureaucracy that governs the District's schools, that 
assumes the cash, that has one of the highest per-pupil funding rates 
in the country; but where the cash ends up in a bureaucracy not helping 
out in the classroom with Johnny and Suzy.
  Charter schools have now attracted over 10 percent of the student 
enrollment, moving toward 15 percent of the students in the public 
schools in the District of Columbia. Charter schools are themselves 
public schools but they do not get stuck with the same bureaucracy, and 
parents want these charter schools. They are sending their kids to 
them. But what is happening, Mr. Chairman, is that the bureaucracy is 
striking back. Not openly, not out in the open, but using their weapon 
of choice, red tape, and strangling the charter schools when they try 
to do something. Charter schools are supposed to have the same access 
to public resources as public schools do.
  We did not create this, Mr. Chairman, but the control board had an 
order that they issued in 1998 saying that if a charter school wanted 
to match the bid price of a vacant school, and they have tons of them 
in the District of Columbia, if a charter school wanted to match the 
bid price, because they were also part of the public school system, 
that if the price was a million dollars or less, they would get a 25 
percent discount; if the price was over a million dollars, it would be 
15 percent. That is where this language providing discounts comes from. 
It is the standard the control board approved.
  But guess what? Let me tell my colleagues a couple of things. Charter 
schools found when they tried to make the leases, the process was being 
dragged out. Let me tell my colleagues the story of the Franklin 
School. The Franklin School had bids solicited for this vacant property 
in February of 1998. There was an appraisal made so the taxpayer would 
be protected. The appraisal was $4.1 million, and the successful bidder 
was a charter school.
  But then the emergency board of education trustees said, well, we 
want to oppose this, and the control board rejected the bid. Why? Well, 
the control board said they found out there was an assessment and the 
District claimed the building is worth more than the $4 million, that 
it is worth $15 million. And they hung on to that claim for months and 
months as a reason, until somebody finally went back to the District 
and checked the records, and the District had changed its own 
assessment, but no one bothered to ask the District about it. The 
District had agreed. They had changed it back in June of 1999 that the 
assessed value was $4.2 million, right in line with the appraisal of 
$4.1 million.
  Despite the successful bid of the charter school, which is now, gosh, 
Mr. Chairman, it is a year and a half old now, the D.C. schools and 
their bureaucracy are dragging their feet and refusing to let the 
building be used for a charter school. They just drag it out. Never any 
overt actions; just we are waiting on this, we are waiting on that. Mr. 
Chairman, we have to cut through the red tape sometime.
  Now, I want to work with the gentlewoman from the District; I want to 
work with the gentleman from Virginia, the ranking member; and I want 
to work with the District people and the school people. I just want to 
make sure that they want to work with the charter schools. The charter 
schools are public schools. They have the same rights, because they 
represent and teach the same kids, the same source of kids, and we have 
to stop the bureaucracy from trying to strangle them.
  The general provisions in the bill just put in common sense 
requirements to make sure they get equal treatment. We could delve into 
the details, but as I said, they could change as we work through this 
process. We want to protect the kids, whether they attend a regular 
public school or a charter school. They need protection. They need a 
good solid education so that they can have a future of hope and growth 
and opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, we certainly oppose the amendment that tries to take 
out these efforts at reform, but we do want to continue to work with 
everyone involved to make these provisions the best they can be.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to sum up here.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not object if the intent is simply to help the 
charter school movement. The mayor wants to do that. I think most 
people in D.C. want to have an alternative school system.
  The problem is this amendment could potentially take $48 million out 
of the public school system. It could displace a number of very 
important organizations; the Commission on Mental Health; the D.C. 
Police Department is using Petworth School. Homeless shelters. So I do 
not think it was fully thought out.
  The problem is that it was done without consultation with the mayor, 
D. C. Council, and the school board. That is why the amendment really 
should be struck. I understand the point of order, but I also know we 
are doing the right thing if we were to strike it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate the gentleman's concern, Mr. Chairman. I want to assure 
him this is not about displacing anyone,

[[Page 16469]]

and certainly I do not believe the amendment does what the gentleman 
claims, but I understand the bona fide concern to make sure that it 
does not.
  We have been working both directly and indirectly with the mayor's 
office and other entities involved and will continue to do so.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it violates the rules of the House since it calls for 
the en bloc consideration of two different paragraphs in the bill.
  The precedents of the House are clear in this matter: ``Amendments to 
a paragraph or section are not in order until such paragraph or section 
has been read.'' Cannon's Precedents, Volume 8, section 2354.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, for the reasons stated by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook), the point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 129. (a) Modification of Contracting Requirements.--
       (1) Contracts subject to notice requirements.--Section 
     2204(c)(1)(A) of the District of Columbia School Reform Act 
     (sec. 31-2853.14(c)(1)(A), D.C. Code) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(A) Notice requirement for procurement contracts.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except in the case of an emergency (as 
     determined by the eligible chartering authority of a public 
     charter school), with respect to any procurement contract 
     proposed to be awarded by the public charter school and 
     having a value equal to or exceeding $25,000, the school 
     shall publish a notice of a request for proposals in the 
     District of Columbia Register and newspapers of general 
     circulation not less than 7 days prior to the award of the 
     contract.
       ``(ii) Exception for certain contracts.--The notice 
     requirement of clause (i) shall not apply with respect to any 
     contract for the lease or purchase of real property by a 
     public charter school, any employment contract for a staff 
     member of a public charter school, or any management contract 
     entered into by a public charter school and the management 
     company designated in its charter or its petition for a 
     revised charter.''.
       (2) Submission of contracts to eligible chartering 
     authority.--Section 2204(c)(1)(B) of such Act (sec. 31-
     2853.14(c)(1)(B), D.C. Code) is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``authority'' and inserting 
     ``eligible chartering authority'';
       (B) in clause (i), by striking ``Authority'' and inserting 
     ``eligible chartering authority''; and
       (C) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) Effective date of contract.--A contract described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall become effective on the date that is 
     10 days after the date the school makes the submission under 
     clause (i) with respect to the contract, or the effective 
     date specified in the contract, whichever is later.''.
       (b) Clarification of Application of School Reform Act.--
       (1) Waiver of duplicate and conflicting provisions.--
     Section 2210 of such Act (sec. 31-2853.20, D.C. Code) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Waiver of Application of Duplicate and Conflicting 
     Provisions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except as otherwise provided in this title, no provision of 
     any law regarding the establishment, administration, or 
     operation of public charter schools in the District of 
     Columbia shall apply with respect to a public charter school 
     or an eligible chartering authority to the extent that the 
     provision duplicates or is inconsistent with any provision of 
     this title.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995.
       (c) Licensing Requirements for Preschool or Prekindergarten 
     Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2204(c) of such Act (sec. 31-
     2853.14(c), D.C. Code) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(18) Licensing as child development center.--A public 
     charter school which offers a preschool or prekindergarten 
     program shall be subject to the same child care licensing 
     requirements (if any) which apply to a District of Columbia 
     public school which offers such a program.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 2202 of such Act 
     (sec. 31-2853.12, D.C. Code) is amended by striking clause 
     (17).
       (B) Section 2203(h)(2) of such Act (sec. 31-2853.13(h)(2), 
     D.C. Code) is amended by striking ``(17),''.
       (d) Section 2403 of the District of Columbia School Reform 
     Act of 1995 (sec. 31-2853.43, D.C. Code) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Assignment of Payments.--A public charter school may 
     assign any payments made to the school under this section to 
     a financial institution for use as collateral to secure a 
     loan or for the repayment of a loan.''.
       (e) Section 2210 of the District of Columbia School Reform 
     Act of 1995 (sec. 31-2853.20, D.C. Code), as amended by 
     subsection (b), is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Participation in GSA Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     Act or any other provision of law, a public charter school 
     may acquire goods and services through the General Services 
     Administration and may participate in programs of the 
     Administration in the same manner and to the same extent as 
     any entity of the District of Columbia government.
       ``(2) Participation by certain organizations.--A public 
     charter school may delegate to a nonprofit, tax-exempt 
     organization in the District of Columbia the public charter 
     school's authority under paragraph (1).''.
       Sec. 130. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of 
     the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
     term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape 
     or incest.
       Sec. 131. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits 
     Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-
     1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system 
     of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether 
     homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not 
     limited to registration for the purpose of extending 
     employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples 
     on the same basis that such benefits are extended to legally 
     married couples.
       Sec. 132. The Superintendent of the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools shall submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, and the Council of the District of 
     Columbia no later than 15 calendar days after the end of each 
     quarter a report that sets forth--
       (1) current quarter expenditures and obligations, year-to-
     date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year 
     expenditure projections versus budget, broken out on the 
     basis of control center, responsibility center, agency 
     reporting code, and object class, and for all funds, 
     including capital financing;
       (2) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center, 
     responsibility center, detailed object, and agency reporting 
     code, and for all funding sources;
       (3) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000 
     annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the 
     budget to which the contract is charged, broken out on the 
     basis of control center, responsibility center, and agency 
     reporting code; and contract identifying codes used by the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools; payments made in the 
     last quarter and year-to-date, the total amount of the 
     contract and total payments made for the contract and any 
     modifications, extensions, renewals; and specific 
     modifications made to each contract in the last month;
       (4) all reprogramming requests and reports that are 
     required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of 
     Education; and
       (5) changes made in the last quarter to the organizational 
     structure of the District of Columbia Public Schools, 
     displaying previous and current control centers and 
     responsibility centers, the names of the organizational 
     entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member 
     supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the 
     structural change.
       Sec. 133. (a) In General.--The Superintendent of the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools and the University of the 
     District of Columbia shall annually compile an accurate and 
     verifiable report on the positions and employees in the 
     public school system and the university, respectively. The 
     annual report shall set forth--
       (1) the number of validated schedule A positions in the 
     District of Columbia public schools and the University of the 
     District of Columbia for fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 2001, 
     and thereafter on full-time equivalent basis, including a 
     compilation of all positions by control center, 
     responsibility center, funding source, position type, 
     position title, pay plan, grade, and annual salary; and
       (2) a compilation of all employees in the District of 
     Columbia public schools and the University of the District of 
     Columbia as of the preceding December 31, verified as to its 
     accuracy in accordance with the functions that each employee 
     actually performs, by control center, responsibility center, 
     agency reporting code, program (including funding source), 
     activity, location for accounting purposes, job title, grade 
     and classification, annual salary, and position control 
     number.
       (b) Submission.--The annual report required by subsection 
     (a) of this section shall be submitted to the Congress, the 
     Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the Consensus 
     Commission, and the Authority, not later than February 15 of 
     each year.
       Sec. 134. (a) No later than November 1, 2000, or within 30 
     calendar days after the

[[Page 16470]]

     date of the enactment of this Act, which ever occurs later, 
     and each succeeding year, the Superintendent of the District 
     of Columbia Public Schools and the University of the District 
     of Columbia shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees, the Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the 
     Consensus Commission, and the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, a revised 
     appropriated funds operating budget for the public school 
     system and the University of the District of Columbia for 
     such fiscal year that is in the total amount of the approved 
     appropriation and that realigns budgeted data for personal 
     services and other-than-personal services, respectively, with 
     anticipated actual expenditures.
       (b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this 
     section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that 
     the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools 
     and the University of the District of Columbia submit to the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia for inclusion in the 
     Mayor's budget submission to the Council of the District of 
     Columbia pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).
       Sec. 135. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority, acting on behalf of the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) in formulating the 
     DCPS budget, the Board of Trustees of the University of the 
     District of Columbia, the Board of Library Trustees, and the 
     Board of Governors of the University of the District of 
     Columbia School of Law shall vote on and approve the 
     respective annual or revised budgets for such entities before 
     submission to the Mayor of the District of Columbia for 
     inclusion in the Mayor's budget submission to the Council of 
     the District of Columbia in accordance with section 442 of 
     the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 47-301), or before submitting their 
     respective budgets directly to the Council.
       Sec. 136. (a) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in 
     Ceiling Under ``Division of Expenses''.--
       (1) In general.--The Mayor, in consultation with the Chief 
     Financial Officer, during a control year, as defined in 
     section 305(4) of the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 (Public 
     Law 104-8; 109 Stat. 152), may accept, obligate, and expend 
     Federal, private, and other grants received by the District 
     government that are not reflected in the amounts appropriated 
     in this Act.
       (2) Requirement of chief financial officer report and 
     authority approval.--No such Federal, private, or other grant 
     may be accepted, obligated, or expended pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) until--
       (A) the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     submits to the Authority a report setting forth detailed 
     information regarding such grant; and
       (B) the Authority has reviewed and approved the acceptance, 
     obligation, and expenditure of such grant in accordance with 
     review and approval procedures consistent with the provisions 
     of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Act of 1995.
       (3) Prohibition on spending in anticipation of approval or 
     receipt.--No amount may be obligated or expended from the 
     general fund or other funds of the District government in 
     anticipation of the approval or receipt of a grant under 
     paragraph (2)(B) of this subsection or in anticipation of the 
     approval or receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not 
     subject to such paragraph.
       (4) Quarterly reports.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia shall prepare a quarterly report setting 
     forth detailed information regarding all Federal, private, 
     and other grants subject to this subsection. Each such report 
     shall be submitted to the Council of the District of 
     Columbia, and to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 15 
     days after the end of the quarter covered by the report.
       (b) Report on Expenditures by Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority.--Not later than 20 calendar 
     days after the end of each fiscal quarter starting October 1, 
     2000, the Authority shall submit a report to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, the Committee on Government Reform of the House, and 
     the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate providing 
     an itemized accounting of all non-appropriated funds 
     obligated or expended by the Authority for the quarter. The 
     report shall include information on the date, amount, 
     purpose, and vendor name, and a description of the services 
     or goods provided with respect to the expenditures of such 
     funds.
       Sec. 137. If a department or agency of the government of 
     the District of Columbia is under the administration of a 
     court-appointed receiver or other court-appointed official 
     during fiscal year 2001 or any succeeding fiscal year, the 
     receiver or official shall prepare and submit to the Mayor, 
     for inclusion in the annual budget of the District of 
     Columbia for the year, annual estimates of the expenditures 
     and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and 
     operation of the department or agency. All such estimates 
     shall be forwarded by the Mayor to the Council, for its 
     action pursuant to sections 446 and 603(c) of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act, without revision but subject to the 
     Mayor's recommendations. Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act (87 Stat. 774; Public Law 
     93-198) the Council may comment or make recommendations 
     concerning such annual estimates but shall have no authority 
     under such Act to revise such estimates.
       Sec. 138. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     rule, or regulation, an employee of the District of Columbia 
     public schools shall be--
       (1) classified as an Educational Service employee;
       (2) placed under the personnel authority of the Board of 
     Education; and
       (3) subject to all Board of Education rules.
       (b) School-based personnel shall constitute a separate 
     competitive area from nonschool-based personnel who shall not 
     compete with school-based personnel for retention purposes.
       Sec. 139. (a) Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles.--
     Except as otherwise provided in this section, none of the 
     funds made available by this Act or by any other Act may be 
     used to provide any officer or employee of the District of 
     Columbia with an official vehicle unless the officer or 
     employee uses the vehicle only in the performance of the 
     officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term ``official duties'' does not include 
     travel between the officer's or employee's residence and 
     workplace (except (1) in the case of an officer or employee 
     of the Metropolitan Police Department who resides in the 
     District of Columbia or is otherwise designated by the Chief 
     of the Department; (2) at the discretion of the Fire Chief, 
     an officer or employee of the District of Columbia Fire and 
     Emergency Medical Services Department who resides in the 
     District of Columbia and is on call 24 hours a day; (3) the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia; and (4) the Chairman of 
     the Council of the District of Columbia).
       (b) Inventory of Vehicles.--The Chief Financial Officer of 
     the District of Columbia shall submit, by November 15, 2000, 
     an inventory, as of September 30, 2000, of all vehicles 
     owned, leased or operated by the District of Columbia 
     government. The inventory shall include, but not be limited 
     to, the department to which the vehicle is assigned; the year 
     and make of the vehicle; the acquisition date and cost; the 
     general condition of the vehicle; annual operating and 
     maintenance costs; current mileage; and whether the vehicle 
     is allowed to be taken home by a District officer or employee 
     and if so, the officer or employee's title and resident 
     location.
       Sec. 140. (a) Source of Payment for Employees Detailed 
     Within Government.--For purposes of determining the amount of 
     funds expended by any entity within the District of Columbia 
     government during fiscal year 2001 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year, any expenditures of the District government 
     attributable to any officer or employee of the District 
     government who provides services which are within the 
     authority and jurisdiction of the entity (including any 
     portion of the compensation paid to the officer or employee 
     attributable to the time spent in providing such services) 
     shall be treated as expenditures made from the entity's 
     budget, without regard to whether the officer or employee is 
     assigned to the entity or otherwise treated as an officer or 
     employee of the entity.
       (b) Modification of Reduction in Force Procedures.--The 
     District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel 
     Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), is further 
     amended in section 2408(a) by striking ``2000'' and 
     inserting, ``2001''; in subsection (b), by striking ``2000'' 
     and inserting ``2001''; in subsection (i), by striking 
     ``2000'' and inserting, ``2001''; and in subsection (k), by 
     striking ``2000'' and inserting, ``2001''.
       (c) No officer or employee of the District of Columbia 
     government (including any independent agency of the District 
     but excluding the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, the 
     Metropolitan Police Department, and the Office of the Chief 
     Technology Officer) may enter into an agreement in excess of 
     $2,500 for the procurement of goods or services on behalf of 
     any entity of the District government until the officer or 
     employee has conducted an analysis of how the procurement of 
     the goods and services involved under the applicable 
     regulations and procedures of the District government would 
     differ from the procurement of the goods and services 
     involved under the Federal supply schedule and other 
     applicable regulations and procedures of the General Services 
     Administration, including an analysis of any differences in 
     the costs to be incurred and the time required to obtain the 
     goods or services.
       Sec. 141. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     later than 120 days after the date that a District of 
     Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) student is referred for 
     evaluation or assessment--
       (1) the District of Columbia Board of Education or its 
     successor, and DCPS shall assess or evaluate a student who 
     may have a

[[Page 16471]]

     disability and who may require special education services; 
     and
       (2) if a student is classified as having a disability, as 
     defined in section 101(a)(1) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (84 Stat. 175; 20 U.S.C. 
     1401(a)(1)) or in section 7(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (87 Stat. 359; 29 U.S.C. 706(8)), the Board and DCPS 
     shall place that student in an appropriate program of special 
     education services.
       Sec. 142. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each agency of the Federal or District of 
     Columbia government shall provide to each recipient of the 
     assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 143. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the 
     District of Columbia government (including the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority) for fiscal year 2000 unless--
       (1) the audit is conducted by the Inspector General of the 
     District of Columbia pursuant to section 208(a)(4) of the 
     District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 1-1182.8(a)(4)); and
       (2) the audit includes a comparison of audited actual year-
     end results with the revenues submitted in the budget 
     document for such year and the appropriations enacted into 
     law for such year.
       Sec. 144. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     authorize any office, agency or entity to expend funds for 
     programs or functions for which a reorganization plan is 
     required but has not been approved by the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority. Appropriations made by this Act for such programs 
     or functions are conditioned only on the approval by the 
     Authority of the required reorganization plans.
       Sec. 145. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
     or regulation, the evaluation process and instruments for 
     evaluating District of Columbia Public School employees shall 
     be a non-negotiable item for collective bargaining purposes.
       Sec. 146. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or any 
     other officer or entity of the District government to provide 
     assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks 
     to require Congress to provide for voting representation in 
     Congress for the District of Columbia.
       Sec. 147. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used to transfer or confine inmates classified above the 
     medium security level, as defined by the Federal Bureau of 
     Prisons classification instrument, to the Northeast Ohio 
     Correctional Center located in Youngstown, Ohio.
       Sec. 148. (a) Section 202(j) of the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 
     1995 (sec. 47-392.2(j), DC Code), as amended by section 
     148(a) of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000, 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(j) Reserve.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning with fiscal year 2000, the 
     financial plan or budget submitted pursuant to this Act shall 
     contain $150,000,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     a reserve to be established by the Mayor, Council of the 
     District of Columbia, Chief Financial Officer for the 
     District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.
       ``(2) Conditions on use.--The reserve funds--
       ``(A) shall only be expended according to criteria 
     established by the Chief Financial Officer and approved by 
     the Mayor, Council of the District of Columbia, and District 
     of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority;
       ``(B) shall not be used to fund the agencies of the 
     District of Columbia government under court ordered 
     receivership; and
       ``(C) shall not be used to fund shortfalls in the projected 
     reductions budgeted in the budget proposed by the District of 
     Columbia government for general supply schedule savings, 
     management reform savings, and cafeteria plan savings.
       ``(3) Report requirement.--The Authority shall notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives in writing 30 days in advance of any 
     expenditure of the reserve funds.
       ``(4) Replenishment.--Any amount of the reserve funds which 
     is expended in one fiscal year shall be replenished in the 
     reserve funds from the following fiscal year appropriations 
     to maintain the $150,000,000 balance.''.
       (b) Section 202(k) of such Act (sec. 47-392.2(k), DC Code), 
     as amended by section 148(b) of the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 2000, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(k) Positive Fund Balance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The District of Columbia shall maintain 
     at the end of a fiscal year an annual positive fund balance 
     in the general fund of not less than 4 percent of the 
     projected general fund expenditures for the following fiscal 
     year.
       ``(2) Excess funds.--Of funds remaining in excess of the 
     amounts required by paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) not more than 50 percent may be used for authorized 
     non-recurring expenses; and
       ``(B) not less than 50 percent shall be used to reduce the 
     debt of the District of Columbia.''.
       (c) The amendments made by this section shall take effect 
     as if included in the enactment of the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 2000.
       Sec. 149. Subsection 3(e) of Public Law 104-21 (D.C. Code 
     sec. 7-134.2(e)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Inspector General Audit.--Not later than February 1, 
     2001, and each February 1, thereafter, the Inspector General 
     of the District of Columbia shall audit the financial 
     statements of the District of Columbia Highway Trust Fund for 
     the preceding fiscal year and shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the results of such audit. Not later than May 31, 
     2001, and each May 31, thereafter, the Inspector General 
     shall examine the statements forecasting the conditions and 
     operations of the Trust Fund for the next five fiscal years 
     commencing on the previous October 1 and shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the results of such examination.''.
       Sec. 150. None of the Federal funds contained in this Act 
     may be used for any program of distributing sterile needles 
     or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 106-790 offered by 
     Mr. Souder:
       In section 150, strike ``Federal''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of any funds 
appropriated by this bill to finance needle exchange programs in the 
District of Columbia.
  The reasoning is simple: Needle exchange programs sanction and 
facilitate the use of the same illegal drugs we are spending billions 
of dollars to keep off our streets. They send the wrong message, and it 
simply does not work.
  This is consistent with the needle exchange ban we passed and that 
was enacted in the bill last year, and I urge my colleagues to maintain 
the ban in this bill. This amendment restores the exact same language 
as the amendment that passed last year with 240 votes and was signed by 
the President.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), whose amendment passed in full 
committee and whose amendment would be negated by this amendment.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page 16472]]

  This amendment clearly illustrates the philosophy of this bill, and 
that is ``do as I say.'' Let me read to my colleagues the people that 
support the needle exchange program.

                              {time}  1600

  The American Medical Association, the American Public Health 
Association, the United States Conference of Mayors.
  Let me read to my colleagues what, on March of this year, the Surgeon 
General said. He said that ``after reviewing all of the research to 
date, the senior scientists of the Department and I have unanimously 
agreed that there is conclusive scientific evidence that syringe 
exchange programs as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention strategy 
are, in effect, public health intervention that reduces the 
transmission of HIV and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs.''
  Clearly, everyone can see that some people are opposed to it 
notwithstanding the facts, and that is the reason this amendment is 
being offered.
  The American Medical Association says that it has an impact. The 
Surgeon General has studied this. It is a simple amendment. It is a 
matter of simple philosophy. They do not like it.
  What funds are they using? Their own funds. Is this some novel idea? 
Thirty States have these programs where they use State and local funds, 
133 cities. But we come to the floor because we personally do not like 
it and say to them that they cannot use their own funds.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) for yielding me the time and commend him for his effort.
  I strongly support his amendment. This is something that would make 
it absolutely clear that the taxpayers' dollars, no matter what 
taxpayers' dollars those might be, cannot be used to provide needles to 
drug addicts to participate in an illegal activity.
  We should not tell our children do not do drugs on the one hand while 
giving them free needles to shoot up with on the other. We need a 
national drug control policy which emphasizes education, interdiction, 
prevention and treatment, not subsidies for addicts.
  Providing free hypodermic needles to addicts so that they can 
continue to inject illegal drugs sends a terrible message to our 
children that Congress has given up on the fight to stop illegal drug 
use and that the Federal Government implicitly condones this illegal 
activity.
  As lawmakers, we have a responsibility to rise up and fight against 
the use and spread of drugs everywhere we can. We should start by 
making it harder, not easier, to practice this deadly habit.
  This amendment will reaffirm the Federal Government's commitment to 
the war on drugs by prohibiting Federal and District funds from being 
used to conduct needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia. 
These programs are harmful to communities and undermine our Nation's 
drug control efforts.
  Drug abuse continues to ravage our communities, our schools, and our 
children. Heroin use is again on the rise. Thousands of children will 
inject hard-core drugs like heroin and cocaine. The first year, many 
will die.
  Oppose the effort to have needle exchanges. Support the Souder 
amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment to prohibit the District of Columbia from using any funds, 
Federal or local, for a needle exchange program.
  The positive effects of needle exchange are proven. In communities 
across the country, needle exchange programs have been established and 
are contributing to the reduction of HIV transmission among IV drug 
users.
  In my hometown of Madison, Wisconsin, as well as in other Wisconsin 
communities, outreach workers and volunteers go into the community and 
provide drug users with risk-reduction education and referrals to drug 
counseling treatment and other medical services.
  Yet Congress continues to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence 
showing that needle exchange is an effective HIV prevention tool.
  I want to end with a personal note on this issue. When outreach 
workers in my community and in other Wisconsin communities go out to 
drug abusers and say, I care about whether you live or die, it brings 
them into treatment and takes them off their dependency.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), the distinguished chairman who chairs the 
Subcommittee on Criminal, Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of 
the Committee on Government Reform.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I do not ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment. I implore them to support this amendment.
  If we want to listen to people who are making statements about needle 
exchange programs, take the word of our drug czar, this 
administration's drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, who said, ``by 
handing out needles, we encourage drug use. Such a message would be 
inconsistent with the tenure of our national youth-oriented antidrug 
campaign.''
  That is our drug czar that made that statement.
  If we want to look at examples where they have instituted drug and 
needle exchange programs and see the results, a 1997 Vancouver study 
reported that their needle exchange program started in 1988 with HIV 
prevalence in drug addicts at only 1 to 2 percent and now it is 23 
percent.
  The study found that 40 percent of the HIV-positive addicts had lent 
their used syringes in the previous 6 months.
  Additionally, the study found that 39 percent of the HIV-negative 
addicts had borrowed a used syringe in the previous 6 months.
  If we want to see what a liberal program will do to a city, just look 
to the sister city to the north, Baltimore. With a liberal mayor who 
adopted a liberal policy on needle exchange, everyone could do it.
  The murder rate is a national disgrace. The addicts, and this 
information was given to our subcommittee by DEA, in 1996 were at 
39,000.
  Recently, a councilwoman, Rickie Specter, said that the statistics 
are not one in 10 of the city population, according to a Time Magazine 
report in September of 1999, but, and these are her words, ``it is more 
like one in eight.''
  So if we want to ruin this city, adopt the policy in the bill and 
defeat the amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, drug czar General McCaffrey has never opposed a 
prohibition on local jurisdiction's efforts to implement a needle 
exchange program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the honorable gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an example of the 
misguided moralism that is so replete in this District of Columbia 
appropriations bill.
  What is at issue here is public health. It has been clearly 
demonstrated that by providing sterile syringes and needles to drug 
addicts, we cut back dramatically on the incidence of HIV and AIDS.
  Fifty percent of the AIDS-positive people in the District of Columbia 
contracted that condition by using contaminated needles. Seventy-five 
percent of the women in the District of Columbia who are HIV-positive 
got that way as a result of contaminated needles. Seventy-five percent 
of the children who are HIV-positive in the District of Columbia got 
that way as a result of contaminated needles.
  This is a public health issue. My colleagues ought to poke their 
noses out of it. Let the District run their own business. They are 
condemning people to contract HIV and AIDS by proposing this amendment 
if it passes. More people will become HIV-positive and more

[[Page 16473]]

people will die of AIDS as a result of this amendment if it passes. It 
should be defeated.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear. There are only two scientific 
long-term studies, one in Vancouver and one in Montreal. In Montreal, 
the number that contracted the AIDS virus more than doubled; in 
Vancouver, it was higher among participants in the program.
  Furthermore, one prominent advocate of the needle exchange program 
said most needle exchange programs provide a valuable service to users. 
They serve as sites of informal and increasingly formal organizing and 
coming together. A user might be able to do the networking needed to 
find good drugs in the half an hour he spends at the street-based 
needle exchange site, networking that might otherwise have taken half a 
day.
  This does not help HIV people. This does not help drug addicts. The 
merciful thing to do, the caring thing to do is to help people get off 
of their addiction, not to fuel their habit by giving them free needles 
paid for by the taxpayers either directly or indirectly.
  This idea that the money is not fungible is laughable. Either 
directly or indirectly, it should not come from the taxpayers of 
Indiana or anywhere else to fuel people's drug habits that also can 
lead them to the HIV virus.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of any of the funds 
appropriated by this bill to finance needle exchange programs in the 
District of Columbia. The reasoning is simple: needle exchange programs 
sanction and facilitate the use of the same illegal drugs we are 
spending billions of dollars to keep off our streets, send the wrong 
message, and simply don't work. It is consistent with the needle 
exchange ban we passed and that was enacted in the bill last year, and 
I urge my colleagues to maintain the ban in this bill. This amendment 
restores the exact language that passed last year with 240 votes and 
was signed by the President.


                   needle exchange promotes drug use

  Our experience with the needle exchange programs so far has shown us 
that needle exchange programs can become havens not only for drug use, 
but also magnets for drug dealers and networking sites for addicts to 
learn where to find more drugs. For example, Donald Grovers, who is a 
prominent advocate of needle exchange programs, has said:

       Most needle exchange programs provide a valuable service to 
     users. . . . They serve as sites of informal (and 
     increasingly formal) organizing and coming together. A user 
     might be able to do the networking needed to find good drugs 
     in the half an hour he spends at the street-based needle 
     exchange site--networking that might otherwise have taken 
     half a day.

  It's also a basic economic law that sellers go where their customers 
are, and for a drug dealer there can be few targets of opportunity 
riper than a needle exchange location. It is almost literally bringing 
sheep to the wolf. The New York Times reported in 1997 that:

       When a storefront is handing out 20,000 syringes a week, 
     suppliers are not far away. East Villagers who have been 
     trying to rebuild a neighborhood devastated by drugs during 
     the 1980s complain that the needle exchange has brought more 
     dealers back to the streets and more addicts into the halls 
     of the public housing projects at the corner.

  James Curtis, a Columbia University Professor, observed in a New York 
Times Op Ed that tenant groups around one of New York's largest needle 
exchange programs told him that the center had become a magnet for 
dealers, and that used needles, syringes and crack vials litter their 
sidewalks. The police do nothing.
  Needle exchange sites have become, for all practical purposes, safe 
havens for drug users to escape law enforcement. The office of the DC 
Police Chief has previously said that its policy is to ``look the other 
way'' when drug addicts approach the Whitman-Walker clinic's mobile van 
unit to receive needles, and other programs are designated ``police-
free zones.'' The Office of National Drug Control Policy concluded that 
the highest rates of property crime in Vancouver were within two blocks 
of the needle exchange.


            needle exchange programs send the wrong message

  Mr. Chairman, we have already appropriated billions of dollars for 
next year to keep drugs off our streets through drug interdiction and 
law enforcement, including aid to the states and the District of 
Columbia. We have also appropriated substantial sums to help those who 
are addicted to drugs get off and stay off through prevention and 
treatment efforts, also including aid to the states and the District of 
Columbia. It makes no sense whatsoever to turn around in this bill and 
appropriate more funds to directly counter those efforts by passing out 
free needles to addicts, or to support efforts by the District of 
Columbia (or any state for that matter) to counter the goals of federal 
policy in these areas.
  Finally, General McCaffrey also pointed out that:

       Needle exchange programs are almost exclusively located in 
     disadvantaged, predominantly minority, low income 
     neighborhoods. . . . These programs are magnets for all 
     social ills--pulling in crime, violence, addicts, 
     prostitution, dealers, and gangs and driving out hope and 
     opportunity. The overwhelming likelihood is that the burdens 
     of any expansion in needle exchange programs will continue to 
     fall upon those already struggling to get by.

  Just yesterday, we passed the Community Renewal bill, one of the most 
hopeful and optimistic pieces of legislation we have considered this 
Congress. Do we want to turn around today and go in the other 
direction?


                  needle exchange programs don't work

  Finally, even if we were to ignore all of that and adopt for the 
purposes of argument the fundamental premises of needle exchange 
advocates, the cold fact of the matter is that needle exchange programs 
simply don't work.
  Dr. Fred Payne, medical advisor to the Children's AIDS Fund, found 
that ``the data from four studies . . . strongly indicate that needle 
exchange is ineffective in reducing HIV transmission among study 
participants,'' and concluded that the evidence on the whole indicated 
that programs were ineffective.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final one minute to 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, for many of us, this has become an issue laden with 
emotional content because of its life-or-death consequences so visible 
where we live.
  HIV-AIDS has become another burden of race in our country and in this 
majority black and Hispanic city. Today, the disease is largely a black 
and brown killer because of contaminated needles. The overwhelming 
majority of new cases have been black and Hispanic for years now. HIV-
AIDS is now a racially based public health emergency.
  What Congress does on needle exchange is heavily laden with racial 
content. The Congress allows citizen localities everywhere else on 
Earth to do what is safe and what works for them.
  The Congress must not condemn women, men, and children who live in 
the District to die because they live in the District. That is what we 
do if we wipe out the District needle exchange program in the city.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to allow the 
District to make its own decisions on how to best prevent new HIV 
infection.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Souder amendment. This 
amendment will prohibit the use of both federal and local funds for the 
City's needle exchange program to prevent new HIV infections in 
injection drug users and their partners.
  The District of Columbia has one of the highest HIV infection rates 
in the country. Intravenous drug use is the District's second highest 
mode of transmission, accounting for over 37 percent of all new AIDS 
cases. For women, where the rate of infection is growing faster than 
among men, it is the highest mode of transmission.
  Scientific evidence supports the fact that needle exchange programs 
reduce HIV infection and do not contribute to illegal drug use. The 
American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the 
American Public Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, 
and the United States Conference of Mayors all have expressed their 
support for needle exchange, as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention 
program. Dr. C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General, also expressed 
support for clean needle exchange programs. These are his words, 
``Having worked on the HIV/AIDS epidemic since its emergence in the 
U.S., I . . . express my strong belief that local programs of clean 
needle exchange can be an

[[Page 16474]]

effective means of preventing the spread of the disease without 
increasing the use of illicit drugs.''
  Once again, we are engaged in heated debate over policies that are 
best left in the hands of the scientific community. We should not be 
politicizing public health decisions.
  The District of Columbia has had a local needle exchange program in 
place since 1997. By using its own funds the number of new HIV/AIDS 
cases due to intravenous drug uses had fallen more than 65% through 
1999. This represents the most significant decline in new AIDS cases, 
across all transmission categories, over this time period.
  Mr. Chairman, AIDS is the third leading cause of death in the 
District. Without a needle exchange program, HIV will spread unchecked, 
and more people will be at risk. Public health decisions should be made 
by public health officials; science should dictate such decisions, not 
politics. I urge my colleagues allow the District to make its own 
decisions on how best to prevent new HIV infections. Vote ``no'' on 
this amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the 
Souder amendment and the bill for several reasons.
  The bill ignores the fact that needle exchange does not increase drug 
use. It ignores the fact that society would have fewer individuals 
infected with HIV if they used clean needles. Needle exchange programs 
make needles available on a replacement basis only, and refer 
participants to drug counseling and treatment. Numerous studies 
concluded that needle exchange programs have shown a reduction in risk 
behaviors as high as 80 percent in injecting drug users, with estimates 
of 30 percent or greater reduction of HIV.
  Mr. Chairman, it has long been known that socioeconomic status 
impacts not only an individual's access to and use of health care but 
also the quality and benefits derived from health care. Impoverished 
communities have higher numbers of homeless individuals. Homelessness, 
in turn, increases risk for HIV due to associated high rates of 
substance abuse and prostitution.
  The Federal Office of Minority Health has determined that increased 
economic inequality is the driving force behind the rising health 
disparities among Americans. Today, racial and ethnic minorities 
comprise approximately 27 percent of the U.S. population, but account 
for more than 66 percent of the Nation's new AIDS cases.
  Mr. Chairman, last year I said this amendment was politically driven, 
rather than scientifically based and that still remains true. This bill 
whips on the poorest of the poor. This bill puts at risk millions of 
Americans who might be married or committed to someone who they may not 
know is an intravenous drug user. More importantly, this bill puts 
children at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to stop the spread of HIV and improve the 
health care of those already infected, prevention and intervention 
programs that are designed to address the specific needs of the 
population affected must be supported. The D.C. ``clean'' needle 
exchange program must be funded. I urge all members to vote against 
this thoughtless amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, 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 CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 563, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 151. (a) Restrictions on Leases.--Upon the expiration 
     of the 60-day period that begins on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, none of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used to make rental payments under a lease for the use of 
     real property by the District of Columbia government 
     (including any independent agency of the District) unless the 
     lease and an abstract of the lease have been filed (by the 
     District of Columbia or any other party to the lease) with 
     the central office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic 
     Development, in an indexed registry available for public 
     inspection.
       (b) Additional Restrictions on Current Leases.--
       (1) In general.--Upon the expiration of the 60-day period 
     that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act, in the 
     case of a lease described in paragraph (3), none for the 
     funds contained in this Act may be used to make rental 
     payments under the lease unless the lease is included in 
     periodic reports submitted by the Mayor and Council of the 
     District of Columbia to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and Senate describing for each 
     such lease the following information:
       (A) The location of the property involved, the name of the 
     owners of record according to the land records of the 
     District of Columbia, the name of the lessors according to 
     the lease, the rate of payment under the lease, the period of 
     time covered by the lease, and the conditions under which the 
     lease may be terminated.
       (B) The extent to which the property is or is not occupied 
     by the District of Columbia government as of the end of the 
     reporting period involved.
       (C) If the property is not occupied and utilized by the 
     District government as of the end of the reporting period 
     involved, a plan for occupying and utilizing the property 
     (including construction or renovation work) or a status 
     statement regarding any efforts by the District to terminate 
     or renegotiate the lease.
       (2) Timing of reports.--The reports described in paragraph 
     (1) shall be submitted for each calendar quarter (beginning 
     with the quarter ending December 31, 2000) not later than 20 
     days after the end of the quarter involved, plus an initial 
     report submitted not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, which shall provide information as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Leases described.--A lease described in this paragraph 
     is a lease in effect as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act for the use of real property by the District of Columbia 
     government (including any independent agency of the District) 
     which is not being occupied by the District government 
     (including any independent agency of the District) as of such 
     date or during the 60-day period which begins on the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 152. (a) Management of Existing District Government 
     Property.--Upon the expiration of the 60-day period that 
     begins on the date of the enactment of this Act, none of the 
     funds contained in this Act may be used to enter into a lease 
     (or to make rental payments under such a lease) for the use 
     of real property by the District of Columbia government 
     (including any independent agency of the District) or to 
     purchase real property for the use of District of Columbia 
     government (including any independent agency of the District) 
     or to manage real property for the use of the District of 
     Columbia (including any independent agency of the District) 
     unless the following conditions are met:
       (1) The Mayor and Council of the District of Columbia 
     certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate that existing real property 
     available to the District (whether leased or owned by the 
     District government) is not suitable for the purposes 
     intended.
       (2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, there is 
     made available for sale or lease all real property of the 
     District of Columbia that the Mayor from time to time 
     determines is surplus to the needs of the District of 
     Columbia, unless a majority of the members of the Council 
     override the Mayor's determination during the 30-day period 
     which begins on the date the determination is published.
       (3) The Mayor and Council implement a program for the 
     periodic survey of all District property to determine if it 
     is surplus to the needs of the District.
       (4) The Mayor and Council within 60 days of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act have filed with the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate, 
     the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate a report which provides a comprehensive plan for 
     the management of District of Columbia real property assets, 
     and are proceeding with the implementation of the plan.
       (b) Termination of Provisions.--If the District of Columbia 
     enacts legislation to reform the practices and procedures 
     governing the entering into of leases for the use of real 
     property by the District of Columbia government and the 
     disposition of surplus real property of the District 
     government, the provisions of subsection (a) shall cease to 
     be effective upon the effective date of the legislation.
       Sec. 153. Section 158(b) of Public Law 106-113, approved 
     November 29, 1999 (113 Stat. 1527) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Source of Funds.--An amount not to exceed $5,000,000 
     from the National Highway System funds apportioned to the 
     District of Columbia under section 104 of title 23, United 
     States Code, may be used for purposes of carrying out the 
     project under subsection (a).''


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 153 
on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House.

[[Page 16475]]

  This provision makes changes to existing law by earmarking up to $5 
million of the District of Columbia's Federal highway funds to complete 
design and environmental requirements for the construction of expanded 
lane capacity for the 14th Street Bridge. This would be an 
unprecedented earmarking of State formula highway funds by the 
Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, put this language in. We have a 
desperate situation on the 14th Street Bridge that is going to be 
exacerbated by construction on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and 
construction on I-66.
  Right now, on many days we will see backups for miles both north and 
south on the GW Parkway. I am sure that many of the Members who do live 
in Virginia are acutely aware of this problem. We need to widen the 
14th Street Bridge desperately. It should be taken care of by the 
Public Works Committee.
  Now, all this is is money for planning, design, and construction to 
widen the 14th Street Bridge. I can see that the Public Works Committee 
wants to retain all of its prerogatives and this is a turf thing, and 
that is understandable.
  What we were trying to do was to help out the District of Columbia so 
they did not have to take it from their own transportation money.
  No good deed generally goes unpunished, and I see this good deed is 
going to be punished. So I understand the motion of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). There is little we can do at this point because, 
under the parliamentary rules, it is a point of order.
  At this point I would concede the point of order.

                              {time}  1615

  The CHAIRMAN. Section 153 of the bill proposes directly to amend 
existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2(b) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 153 
is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 154. (a) Certification.--None of the funds contained 
     in this Act may be used after the expiration of the 30-day 
     period that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     to pay the salary of any chief financial officer of any 
     office of the District of Columbia government (including the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority and any independent agency of the 
     District) who has not filed a certification with the Mayor 
     and the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     that the officer understands the duties and restrictions 
     applicable to the officer as a result of this Act (and the 
     amendments made by this Act), including any duty to prepare a 
     report requested either in the Act or in any of the reports 
     accompanying the Act and the deadline by which each report 
     must be submitted, and the District's Chief Financial Officer 
     shall provide to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives by the 10th day after 
     the end of each quarter a summary list showing each report, 
     the due date and the date submitted to the Committees.
       (b) Penalty.--Any chief financial officer who carries out 
     any activity in violation of any provision of this Act or any 
     amendment made by this Act shall be subject to a civil money 
     penalty in accordance with applicable District of Columbia 
     law.
       Sec. 155. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of the 
     District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel 
     Act of 1978 (D.C. Law 2-139; D.C. Code 1-601.1 et seq.), or 
     any other District of Columbia law, statute, regulation, the 
     provisions of the District of Columbia Personnel Manual, or 
     the provisions of any collective bargaining agreement, 
     employees of the District of Columbia government will only 
     receive compensation for overtime work in excess of 40 hours 
     per week (or other applicable tour of duty) or work actually 
     performed, in accordance with the provisions of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.
       (b) Subsection (a) of this section shall be effective 
     December 27, 1996 in order to ratify and approve the 
     Resolution and Order of the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, dated 
     December 27, 1996.
       Sec. 156. The proposed budget of the government of the 
     District of Columbia for fiscal year 2002 that is submitted 
     by the District to Congress shall specify potential 
     adjustments that might become necessary in the event that the 
     management savings achieved by the District during the year 
     do not meet the level of management savings projected by the 
     District under the proposed budget.
       Sec. 157. In submitting any document showing the budget for 
     an office of the District of Columbia government (including 
     an independent Agency of the District) that contains a 
     category of activities labeled as ``other'', 
     ``miscellaneous'', or a similar general, nondescriptive term, 
     the document shall include a description of the types of 
     activities covered in the category and a detailed breakdown 
     of the amount allocated for each such activity.
       Sec. 158. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may 
     be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to 
     legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the 
     possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance 
     under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any 
     tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
       (b) The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment 
     Initiative of 1998, also know as Initiative 59, approved by 
     the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 1998, 
     shall not take effect.
       Sec. 159. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia, in consultation with the 
     committee established under section 603(e)(2)(B) of the 
     Student Loan Marketing Association Reorganization Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 8009-293, as amended by Public 
     Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1526), is hereby authorized to 
     allocate the District's limitation amount of qualified zone 
     academy bonds (established pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 1397E) among 
     qualified zone academies within the District.
       Sec. 160. (a) Section 11232 of the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997 (sec. 24-1232, DC Code) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (f) through (i) as 
     subsections (g) through (j); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Treatment as Federal Employees.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Trustee and employees of the Trustee 
     who are not covered under subsection (e) shall be treated as 
     employees of the Federal Government solely for purposes of 
     the following provisions of title 5, United States Code:
       ``(A) Chapter 83 (relating to retirement).
       ``(B) Chapter 84 (relating to the Federal Employees' 
     Retirement System).
       ``(C) Chapter 87 (relating to life insurance).
       ``(D) Chapter 89 (relating to health insurance).
       ``(2) Effective dates of coverage.--The effective dates of 
     coverage of the provisions of paragraph (1) are as follows:
       ``(A) In the case of the Trustee and employees of the 
     Office of the Trustee and the Office of Adult Probation, 
     August 5, 1997, or the date of appointment, whichever is 
     later.
       ``(B) In the case of employees of the Office of Parole, 
     October 11, 1998, or the date of appointment, whichever is 
     later.
       ``(C) In the case of employees of the Pretrial Services 
     Agency, January 3, 1999, or the date of appointment, 
     whichever is later.
       ``(3) Rate of contributions.--The Trustee shall make 
     contributions under the provisions referred to in paragraph 
     (1) at the same rates applicable to agencies of the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management 
     shall issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out 
     this subsection.''.
       (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 
     as if included in the enactment of title XI of the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997.
       Sec. 161. It is the sense of Congress that the patients of 
     Saint Elizabeths Hospital and the taxpayers of the District 
     of Columbia are being poorly served by the current facilities 
     and management of the Hospital.
       Sec. 162. It is the sense of Congress that the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority should quickly complete the sale of the Franklin 
     School property, a property which has been vacant for over 20 
     years.
       Sec. 163. It is the sense of Congress that the District of 
     Columbia government should take all steps necessary to ensure 
     that officials of the District government (including 
     officials of the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     independent agencies, boards, commissions, and corporations 
     of the government) maintain a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers 
     of the District in the administration of funds under their 
     control.
       Sec. 164. No amounts may be made available during fiscal 
     year 2001 to the District of Columbia Health and Hospitals 
     Public Benefit Corporation (through reprogramming, transfers, 
     loans, or any other mechanism) other than the amounts which 
     are otherwise provided for the Corporation in this Act under 
     the heading ``District of Columbia Health and Hospitals 
     Public Benefit Corporation''.
       Sec. 165. (a) For each payment or group of payments made by 
     or on behalf of the District of Columbia Health and Hospitals 
     Public Benefit Corporation, the Chief Financial Officer of 
     the District of Columbia shall sign an affidavit certifying 
     that the making of the payment does not constitute a 
     violation of any provision of subchapter III of chapter 13 of 
     title 31, United States Code, or of any provision of this 
     Act.

[[Page 16476]]

       (b) More than one payment may be covered by the same 
     affidavit under subsection (a), but a single affidavit may 
     not cover more than one week's worth of payments.
       (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to order any other 
     person to sign any affidavit required under this section, or 
     for any person to provide any signature required under this 
     section on such an affidavit by proxy or by machine, 
     computer, or other facsimile device.
       Sec. 166. The District of Columbia Health and Hospitals 
     Public Benefit Corporation may not obligate or expend any 
     amounts during fiscal year 2001 unless (at the time of the 
     obligation or expenditure) the Corporation certifies that the 
     obligation or expenditure is within the budget authority 
     provided to the Corporation in this Act.
       Sec. 167. Nothing in this Act bars the District of Columbia 
     Corporation Counsel from reviewing or commenting on briefs in 
     private lawsuits, or from consulting with officials of the 
     District government regarding such lawsuits.
       Sec. 168. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Health Insurance Coverage for Contraceptives Act of 2000 
     (D.C. Bill 13-399) shall not take effect.
       (b) Nothing in this section may be construed to prevent the 
     Council or Mayor of the District of Columbia from addressing 
     the issue of the provision of contraceptive coverage by 
     health insurance plans, but it is the intent of Congress that 
     any legislation enacted on such issue should include a 
     ``conscience clause'' which provides exceptions for religious 
     beliefs and moral convictions.


                 amendment no. 23 offered by ms. norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 23 printed in the Congressional Record 
     offered by Ms. Norton:
       In section 168, strike ``(a)'' and all that follows through 
     ``(b)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise to ask that subsection (a) of section 168 be stricken as moot. 
It certainly repeals a section of D.C. law soon to be vetoed locally. 
The Congress like every legislature or law enforcement body always 
prefers to have people act on their own.
  This is what the mayor and the D.C. council have done to extinguish 
the controversy that arose concerning the council bill to provide 
contraception as an option in insurance sold in the District. The 
council, on its own, came close to adopting a conscience clause but 
narrowly failed. Now indisputably the council is ready, willing and 
able to act. A joint letter from Mayor Anthony Williams and Council 
Chair Linda Cropp to the chairman indicated that they, quote, ``who 
know the issues best and all the parties well are prepared to address 
the necessary clause, giving great weight to parties in the District 
who advocate family planning and religious liberty,'' end quote.
  To make good on his letter, the mayor publicly announced, on 
television, that he will pocket veto the contraception bill and work 
with the council to produce an acceptable compromise. The mayor is 
using a pocket veto rather than a veto now not because of any 
reluctance to veto the bill but because he has taken upon himself to 
bring all the parties together to a solution acceptable to all.
  Mayor Williams is himself Catholic, and he has met with Auxiliary 
Bishop William Lori. He knows his council, and his judgment is that a 
pocket veto is what is appropriate if the point is to reach a solution 
acceptable to church and state alike, rather than further polarize the 
parties. The letter from Council Chair Cropp and Mayor Williams to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the Mayor's public 
announcement that he will pocket veto the bill as well as assurances of 
the pocket veto received here in writing to the chairman makes 
subsection (a) of section 168 moot. What would remain is section 
168(b).
  This section relating to religious and moral concerns more than 
satisfies the issue that has been raised in the Congress. Not to strike 
section (a) comes close to an insult to the Mayor and the Council Chair 
who have given their word in writing and publicly. In political life, a 
public man or woman's word is his or her bond. What D.C. officials have 
written and the Mayor has publicly declared concerning a pocket veto 
surely closes the circle and gives all the assurances that out of 
respect and dignity should ever be asked.
  There is more. As you know, D.C. law is not law until it lays over 
for 30 legislative days. That time frame means that considering the 
upcoming recess days, no bill could become law until sometime in March. 
To add to that insurance policy, the Congress can on its own, sui 
sponte, introduce and enact any bill or amendment concerning the 
District, such is your all-consuming power over the District of 
Columbia.
  Mayor Anthony Williams and Council Chair Linda Cropp and the D.C. 
City Council deserve their dignity as grown-up public officials with 
reputations for integrity elected to govern our Nation's capital. I ask 
you to show them the same respect we ourselves would demand. Please 
strike section 168(a).
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am going to have a somewhat mixed response to the comments by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. What we are talking about 
here has not, I do not think, been fully stated, and it needs to be. I 
believe the date was July 11 when the Council had its meeting.
  At that meeting, an ordinance came up for consideration requiring 
placing a mandate compelling employers in the District of Columbia to 
make one portion of health insurance coverage be that contraceptives 
would be covered, that they would be part of the benefit. Now, we could 
have a separate debate, we are not going to, but we could have a 
separate debate about what happens when you keep putting different 
mandates on health insurance.
  No matter how common sense some particular mandate may seem to some 
people, it still drives up the cost. It is like every time you buy a 
car, they say, do you want this option or that option, or anything else 
that you purchase that you have got options, the more options you 
choose, the higher it costs. The same thing is true, of course, with 
health insurance.
  If you require that people cannot buy health insurance unless you get 
it with all these options, then you find that nobody can buy plain 
coverage. Just like they could not buy a plain car if they had to buy 
the ones with all the options with it. Now, that is a separate issue 
because frankly it is not the core of the debate but that is where it 
started.
  They said we want to mandate. We want to make sure if you are an 
employer in the District of Columbia and you are offering health care 
benefits, you cannot do it unless you include coverage for 
contraceptives. In the process of doing so, there had been a lot of 
work behind the scenes and a lot of debate and a lot of effort by the 
D.C. Council and by people within the community bringing up the issue 
of a conscience clause.
  The Catholic Church, and entities affiliated with it, which has 
religious beliefs that are negative toward contraceptives, at least in 
the way that many other people may look at them, but the Catholic 
Church is a major employer in the District of Columbia. Georgetown 
University, the hospital services they provide, I will mention maybe as 
part of the laundry list later, but the point is they said, ``For us 
and for other people, you are asking us to be doing something that is 
against our beliefs. You shouldn't do that.''
  We have got the first amendment protecting religion in this country. 
And what happened--and people saw it on TV, and they read about it--was 
that a little bit of a fire storm developed because rather than 
accommodating a good faith request for a conscience clause for people 
who have a religious or moral problem with providing contraceptives, 
the D.C. Council ran roughshod over them. Not only that, they conducted 
a hearing that was vitriolic toward people of faith in

[[Page 16477]]

general and the Catholic Church in particular.
  That did not sit well with this Congress. That did not sit well with 
a great many people in the District. That did not sit well with people 
in the country. So we put in the bill a simple provision under our 
authority, under our obligation of article 1, section 8 of the 
Constitution, to have the legislative authority over the District of 
Columbia, saying this proposed law, that I believe ultimately was even 
adopted unanimously by the D.C. Council, this proposed law shall not 
take effect, cannot do it. And if you come back to fix things, to adopt 
a conscience clause, make sure that it covers religious beliefs and 
moral convictions, which is the law that is found in the Federal 
standard that we have adopted, for example, for the Federal employees 
health benefit plan. The Federal standard provides coverage for 
contraceptives but does not mandate that it has to be done so in 
violation of a religious belief or a moral conviction of the employer, 
employee and so forth. So we have got that in there.
  The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, however, makes an 
objection to the portion, and to her credit she is not asking that we 
strike the entire section, she is not asking that and nobody should 
think that she is. She is not asking that we strike the section that 
says if they come back and do something again, they must provide a 
conscience clause for religious belief and moral conviction. What she 
is requesting is that we strike the part that says this proposed law 
shall not go into effect.
  Well, why? Because, she says, having been subjected to this fire 
storm, the mayor and the council have learned and they have made public 
statements that they intend to do this and the mayor has made a public 
statement, indeed he has done so to me in writing, that he intends to 
do a pocket veto of the bill.
  Now, that legislation was passed by the D.C. Council a couple of 
weeks ago, and he has had an opportunity to veto this legislation. He 
has had the opportunity. He could just take it, write veto, and it is 
vetoed. And then what is left for us to do?
  Instead, he said he wants to use a procedure that drags it out, that 
gives them, I think it is about 10 business days or so, that may 
ultimately result in vetoing that legislation which so many people find 
so offensive, but he has not done it yet. We are dealing with the here 
and now. We are talking about the current circumstances, which is that 
this provision is alive, and people want to look to us and they say, 
``We don't want you to demonstrate the disregard for religious 
convictions and beliefs of people of faith in this country that was 
demonstrated by the Council in the District of Columbia.'' They want to 
make sure that we take action to show which side we are on on this 
issue.
  If we do not use our opportunity to disapprove it, who are we siding 
with? The mayor could veto this bill, the bill that was passed by the 
D.C. Council. He could veto it. He has chosen not to do so. He has said 
he will do it with a pocket veto in the future. I believe him.
  Nevertheless, right now it is a live issue. And since a live issue is 
before us and people in the District government knew the basic schedule 
of when this bill would come to the floor, they could have taken action 
before it got to this point. They have not chosen to do so. The D.C. 
Council could have gotten together and said, we rescind, we take back 
what we did. They have not done that. They have had time to do it. They 
have not done it. People want to know where we stand. I believe that 
we, under the situation as it exists now, should not accept this 
amendment, we should oppose it, but certainly we look forward to the 
future when the D.C. Council and the mayor will actually take action, 
not just say they are going to do something but will actually take 
action to fix this situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to include a letter from the National 
Conference of Catholic Bishops and printed excerpts from D.C. Council 
proceedings on this issue.

                                            National Conference of


                                             Catholic Bishops,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2000.
     To Hon. Ernest Istook, Jr.

       Dear Member of Congress: As the House of Representatives 
     considers the District of Columbia appropriations bill for 
     Fiscal Year 2001, I write to explain the need for strong 
     conscience protection in the bill's provision on mandated 
     contraceptive coverage.
       As approved by committee, the bill prevents implementation 
     of the D.C. City Council's proposal to force all employers in 
     the District of Columbia, to buy coverage for a broad range 
     of contraceptives and abortifacient ``morning-after'' drugs 
     for their employees. The bill also expresses the intent of 
     Congress that any future D.C. legislation on this issue 
     include a conscience clause that ``provides exceptions for 
     religious beliefs and moral convictions.''
       On the House floor there may be an effort to delete or 
     weaken this provision, possibly by deleting conscience 
     protection based on moral convictions. Congress should reject 
     such a change.
       We object to a government mandate for contraceptive 
     coverage generally. At a time when tens of millions of 
     Americans lack even the most basic health coverage, effort to 
     mandate elective drugs and devices which raise serious moral 
     problems and can pose their own health risks are misguided. 
     In addition, any such mandate will cause needless injustice 
     if it does not provide full protection to those who object 
     for reason of conscience. This is so for several reasons:
       Narrow Language Protecting only Churches Is Inadequate. 
     City Council members who strongly favor the contraceptive 
     mandate offered a concscience clause protecting only 
     ``religious organizations'' when they approved their bill 
     July 11. But they defined a ``religious organization'' so 
     narrowly that it would exclude hospitals, universities, 
     religiously affiliated social service agencies such as 
     Catholic Charities, and even Catholic elementary schools. An 
     organization could qualify for exemption only it its 
     ``primary purpose'' is the ``inculcation of religious 
     beliefs''--and as a Council member observed, Catholic schools 
     teach subjects other than religion. The Council also would 
     have assessed a fine against each religious organization 
     claiming an exemption; the fine would defray the costs of 
     investigations by the D.C. Insurance Commissioner to ensure 
     that the organization is ``reglious enough.'' Council members 
     who support genuine conscience protection rightly declined 
     the offer of ``protection'' framed in this way. A vague 
     requirement to protect only ``religious beliefs,'' however, 
     may invite renewed mischief of this kind.
       Moral Concerns and Abortifacient Drugs. The D.C. mandate 
     requires coverage of all prescription drugs and devices 
     approved by the FDA for contraception, including, what the 
     FDA calls ``postcoital emergency contraception.'' Aside from 
     specifically religious concerns, there is broad agreement 
     that such drugs often work by destroying an early human 
     embryo. This raises moral concerns about early abortion which 
     transcend any particular religion. Congress itself bans 
     federal funding of experiments that harm or destroy human 
     embryos in the first two weeks of life--a sound moral 
     decision based on no one religious belief. Congress should 
     not deny the same right of morally based decision making to 
     others.
       Federal Precedent on Rights on Conscience. Numerous 
     conscience clauses in federal law protect conscientious 
     objection based on both religious and moral grounds, in 
     contexts ranging from capital punishment to abortion and 
     sterilization. Many state laws are similarly broad. These are 
     based on a sound understanding that forcing someone to engage 
     in activity that violates his or her deeply held 
     conscientious beliefs is a violation of human rights and an 
     abuse of government. Clearly, not all conscientious moral 
     convictions are based on religious belief. Indeed, Congress 
     protects medical residency programs from being forced to 
     provide abortion training regardless of whether their 
     opposition is morally based, because abortion is simply not 
     the kind of practice which anyone should be forced to 
     participate in for any reason. Current protections against 
     forced participation in abortion and sterilization also 
     extend to organizations as well as individuals. To retreat 
     from this tradition now in favor of narrower and more 
     grudging protection restricted to religious belief alone 
     would send an ominous signal regarding the U.S. government's 
     respect for rights of conscience.
       Protecting Individuals' Conscience Rights. By mandating 
     prescription contraceptive coverage in health plans, the 
     government increases the pressure on individual physicians 
     and pharmacists in these plans to violate their own 
     consciences. Even without a government mandate, pharmacists' 
     careers have been endangered when they refuse on moral 
     grounds to fill prescriptions for abortifacient ``emergency 
     contraception'' (see J. Allen, ``Morning-after pill'' battles 
     flare: Patients, doctors, druggists in birth-control tug of 
     war,'' Washington Times, May 27, 1997, p. A3). In light of 
     such cases, the American Pharmaceutical Association and other 
     organizations have urged respect for rights of 
     ``conscientious refusal'' which they do not

[[Page 16478]]

     confine to religious grounds. Codes of medical ethics, as 
     well, generally speak of physicians' right to refuse 
     participation in activities they find immoral or unethical. 
     The federal government has already enacted conscience 
     protection based on both religious and moral convictions for 
     health care personnel in health plans providing coverage to 
     federal employees. It should do no less here, attending as 
     well to employees who could be forced by government to 
     purchase morally objectionable contraceptive coverage or 
     forgo prescription drug coverage altogether.
       We believe contraceptive mandates should not be imposed on 
     private organizations. But if some form of mandate is 
     adopted, effective protection for conscientious objection on 
     both moral and religious grounds should be ensured.
       Sincerely yours,
                                     Rev. Msgr. Dennis M. Schnurr,
                                                General Secretary.
                                  ____
                                  

          Remarks by DC City Council on Contraceptive Coverage


                      kathleen patterson (ward 3)

       ``It would, in fact, put the District in the role of 
     sanctioning workplace discrimination. . . . If we approve 
     this amendment, we are, as a matter of policy, permitting one 
     particular large and powerful institution to between low 
     income District women and comprehensive health care 
     coverage.''


                        sharon ambrose (ward 6)

       ``If some other religion, let's say some other religion 
     that was not quite so large an employer in Ward 5 and in the 
     city in general as is the Holy Roman Church. Let us say 
     another religion, Mrs. Allen's Sunday Morning Worship Service 
     over on K St., SE . . . what if decided it was going to 
     exclude certain employees of its large church kitchen from 
     coverage in its plan. Would that be, would that be OK?''


                          jim graham (ward 1)

       ``And you know, I spent years in this city fighting--and 
     let me mention the Catholic Church by name--fighting Church 
     dogma in terms of availability of condoms in this city which 
     prevented, which prevented us have from having an effective 
     program in many instances for the prevention of the 
     transmission of HIV. Now I see on both of these amendemnts . 
     . . the standard is religious belief, religious belief 
     whether it be bona fide or not. I am very concerned about 
     having religious principles impact health policy . . . what 
     does this mean is terms of domestic partnership? . . . Are we 
     going to say that we are going to defer to Rome in terms of 
     our views on whether domestic partners should be covered by 
     insurance plans that happen to be operated by religious 
     organizations?''


                        david catania (at-large)

       ``I mean, so to suggest that the church is somehow unduly 
     burdened in this society by this minor provision, I think is 
     absurd . . . And, I want to associate myself very strongly 
     with the comments of Mr. Graham on other issues, not only 
     with respect to the teaching of some churches on gay and 
     lesbian issues, but also the role of fighting against the use 
     of contraceptives and role that it has in the spread of HIV,  
     . . . ''


                         kevin chavous (ward 7)

       ``. . . And not necessarily this feeling that we should 
     respect the individual religious doctrine of a certain 
     organization. . . . and urge my colleagues to act not just on 
     this nation that we are, and this has nothing to do with the 
     separation of church and state. I mean, we're not imposing 
     our will on any particular religious organization. Again, the 
     question is to what extent should we accommodate those 
     religious organizations that seek to profit off of the public 
     in some way.''


                          jim graham (ward 1)

       ``. . . we are permitting religious principles to dictate 
     public health policy. . . . There is a difference b/n the 
     words `tenets' and `beliefs,' but it is the same thing. It's 
     the same thing. The church will now determine, a particular 
     church will now determine, if, why, whether contraceptives 
     and contraceptive devices will now be available. We're going 
     to turn over the responsibility for these decisions in effect 
     to the pope. . . . Because ROME has determined that this is 
     against the tenets of the Catholic Church and so you're not 
     going to have access to this of the terms of your health care 
     plan . . . My problem of surrending decisions on public 
     health matters to a church so that religious principles 
     rather than sound public policy can determine whether a 
     contraceptive device is or is not available. . . . The church 
     is homophobic so we have to say, we respect what are 
     homophobic points of view.''

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had it. I have really had it. Why do you see 
people go to the gallery, screaming at the top of their lungs, 
something I do not encourage now and did not encourage then, it has a 
lot to do with what we have just heard.
  A mayor of the District of Columbia who has credibility with every 
Member of this body has indicated in writing and publicly on television 
that he will pocket veto a bill, and the reason he is going to pocket 
veto the bill is because if he just vetoed it in the face of the 
council, then it would be hard of him to bring the Catholic Church, and 
he is a Catholic, together with his council.
  He has indicated publicly, this mayor, who has all the credibility in 
the world, that he is going to do what this chairman has asked him to 
do. The mayor has asked me to accept the language this chairman has 
written and this chairman has just gotten up and said that that is not 
enough. We, in the District, are damned if we do and we are damned if 
we try to do what we say do.
  A pocket veto from a mayor who is trying to do what you say do should 
be all you need when he has accepted the language that we asked him to 
accept and when he is working with his own Catholic Church, and they 
have agreed to work with him and they have agreed not to come here to 
ask us to do another thing, we ought to declare victory and go home.
  I am insulted by the fact that you would not accept my amendment by 
how hard my mayor and my city council have worked. You have cast 
aspersions on their credibility. You have indicated that the mayor had 
nothing to do with the debate in the council, it will never be enough 
for you.
  You have two more bites at the apple. Supposedly he is a liar, and 
that is what you called him today. Supposedly he is a liar. You need to 
have a veto. You need to make it almost impossible for him to bring the 
sides together by putting a veto in his face. Supposedly he is a liar.
  You still have two bites at the apple by rubbing the city's nose in 
it, time and time again. Patience is running out with this body. I 
resent what the gentleman has done, and I want you to know it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, perhaps some people take 
umbrage at the passion of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton), but I would expect that any of us if facing the same 
level of frustration and unfairness would react in the same passionate 
manner.
  She is defending, not only her constituents but a process, a 
democratic process, that she believes in that caused all of us to get 
into public service, and the fact is, she is right, Madam Chairman. The 
mayor of the District of Columbia said he is going to pocket veto this 
bill. We have to believe the mayor, I cannot believe any of us do not 
believe that he is going to do that. So if we believe he is going to do 
that, why are we doing this?
  He is going to insist that there be a religious exemption clause. 
People that have moral objections are going to be able to raise them. 
So why are we doing this, putting this offensive language in this bill? 
Just to show that we are more powerful than them, just to show them. 
She is right. This is wrong.
  Now, let me also say it is wrong for insurance companies to cover 
viagra for men and not cover contraception for women. Let us just tell 
it like it is. What could be more unfair? All this contraceptive equity 
provision says is that insurance companies ought to be fair and start 
respecting women, when contraception is the largest single expense, 
out-of-pocket expense, for women during most of their lives. It ought 
to be covered.
  So it is the right legislation. They should have passed this 
legislation, and it is also true that most of these Catholic 
institutions are self-insured. It does not even apply to them. They are 
self-insured.
  Let me also say something else. I certainly would never say this if 
my own life were different, but having been educated in Catholic 
schools all my life, I understand the sense of frustration and 
disappointment that Councilman Jim Graham expressed on the D.C. council 
on this matter.
  He expressed disappointment with the Catholic church as an 
institution

[[Page 16479]]

because of its position towards homosexuality. That is his right. So I 
do not blame him for that. I know he wishes he had not said that, but 
these are debates that belonged in the D.C. council. These are debates 
and issues that should be settled, should be settled by the D.C. 
government.
  The Catholic institutions within the D.C. government have plenty of 
access. They are well respected, deservedly so. They contribute 
tremendous benefits to D.C. government and its society. They will be 
fully reflected in the legislation that becomes law, and that is the 
way it ought to be. We have no business getting involved in this issue, 
particularly when we have no legitimate role to play.
  The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is 
absolutely right. The mayor is going to take care of that situation. 
Let him take care of the situation. He will be held accountable. He 
should be held accountable. He is elected. He understands it. He has a 
solution for it, and that is the way it should be, and what we are 
doing on this floor is not what should be done by this Congress. Madam 
Chairman, I gather we are going to continue this debate tomorrow.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, although I think everyone wants to continue the 
debate tomorrow, I do find it necessary to take at least 30 seconds, 
because I think a couple of things need to be said.
  I certainly would not endorse and extend the attacks on the Catholic 
Church or any other church, whether the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran) wishes to do so is his free speech right. I fear that he has 
added fuel to the fire rather than trying to suppress it.
  In response to the gentlewoman from the District (Ms. Norton), I said 
clearly, and I will repeat it, the mayor said in writing to me that he 
intends to do the pocket veto of the bill, and I believe him. That does 
not change the fact that it has not been vetoed; it remains a live 
issue where people expect this Congress to do something. It is a live 
issue until such time as the veto has indeed occurred.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of Representative 
Norton's Amendment because I am concerned about several of the 
provisions in the ``General Provisions'' section of this bill. 
Specifically, I object to discriminatory riders targeting the 
District's lesbian and gay people, and people living with HIV/AIDS.
  Approximately half of all new HIV infections are linked to injection 
drug use, and three-quarters of new HIV infections in children are the 
result of injection drug use by a parent. Why would we pass up the 
opportunity to save a child's life by shutting down programs that work?
  Although AIDs deaths have declined in recent years as a result of new 
treatments and improved access to care, HIV/AIDS remains the leading 
cause of death among African-Americans aged 25-44 in the District. In 
spite of these statistics Republicans have singled out the District and 
attempted to shut down programs that the local community has 
established to reduce new HIV infections. This Congress should be 
supporting the decisions that local communities make about their health 
care. Giving local control back to the American people has been a major 
theme of the current Congress, and interfering with District self-
government is contradictory to that goal.
  Numerous health organizations including the American Medical 
Association, the American Public Health Association, and the National 
Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors have concluded that 
needle exchange programs are effective. In addition, at my request the 
Surgeon General's office has prepared a review of all peer-reviewed, 
scientific studies of needle exchange programs over the past two years 
and they also conclusively found that needle exchange programs reduce 
HIV transmission and do not increase drug use.
  I also object to the provision in this bill that prevents the Health 
Care Benefits Expansion Act from being implemented. The District passed 
this legislation eight years ago to allow District employees to 
purchase health insurance for a domestic partner, take family and 
medical leave to care for a partner, and visit a hospitalized partner. 
This legislation provides basic, fundamental health care rights that 
all Americans should enjoy regardless of sexual orientation.
  Over 3,000 employers around the country, including hundreds of 
cities, municipalities, private and public college and universities, 
have established domestic partnership health programs. A list of these 
firms includes almost a hundred Fortune 500 companies, including some 
of the biggest, like AT&T, Citigroup, and IBM. These companies 
understand the benefits of offering these programs in today's 
competitive work environment.
  Cities such as Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New 
York all have domestic partnership benefits in place. Congress has 
taken no action to block any of the domestic partnership benefits 
provided by hundreds of municipalities throughout the nation.
  Gay and Lesbian Americans in the District of Columbia and across the 
country make significant contributions to our society and their 
relationships, in the community and in the workplace, should be treated 
with respect. I urge my colleagues to support the Norton Amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Morella, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________