[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20667-20674]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4942, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table 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 revenues of said District for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.


          Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Moran of Virginia moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the Senate amendments to the bill H.R. 4942 
     be instructed to recede from disagreement with the amendment 
     of the Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) will 
be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the motion, as it was read, would instruct the conferees 
to accept the Senate version of the District of Columbia appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2001. The reason is that the Senate bill is a 
superior bill.
  The Senate bill is a bill that was supported by virtually all of the 
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, will be supported by virtually 
all of the Democrats and I think a great many Republicans in the House. 
It is a bill that is supported by the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
and by the D.C. City Council, the properly elected officials to govern 
the district. And it is the only bill that the President will sign.
  This bill provides $34 million more in Federal funds to enable the 
District to undertake important economic development, environmental 
restoration and educational opportunity activities. It fully funds the 
Federal commitment to build the New York Avenue metro station; and, in 
fact, it represents only a third of the cost, given the fact that if we 
provide this money; the private sector will provide another third; 
another third will come from local funds.
  The Senate bill also enables the Poplar Point remediation project to 
begin. It provides tuition assistance for D.C. students to be able to 
take advantage of the ability to attend college outside of the District 
of Columbia. Without these funds, that program cannot be fully 
implemented. And it will enable the D.C. courts to see their first pay 
increase in more than 5 years.
  The Senate bill also refrains from imposing new social policies on 
the District, policies that we would never try to impose on our own 
constituents in our own congressional districts, and policies that have 
been rejected by the citizens of the District of Columbia and that, in 
fact, are intended to negate actions, programs, and initiatives that 
are working within the District of Columbia and that we ought to 
support not only because they are working, but, most importantly, 
because they are the way that the citizens of the District of Columbia 
choose to spend their own money.
  In addition to eliminating the more controversial social riders that 
were added anew to this bill, it goes a long way in honoring and giving 
more respect to the District and its reform-minded elected officers by 
reducing by more than 30 the number of general provisions in the bill 
that are no longer necessary.
  That is why the Senate bill is a superior bill, why in the very last 
days of this session we ought to recede to the Senate and get this bill 
passed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise to oppose the motion to instruct made by the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  I recognize the gentleman is concerned about the differences between 
the House-passed and Senate-passed bills and he is willing to take what 
the Senate has done, but I would certainly disagree with some of the 
things he wants to accomplish because I think he would defeat his whole 
purpose if we were to adopt the Senate bill.

[[Page 20668]]

  If we were to adopt the Senate bill, for example, we would create a 
hole of $61 million in the District's own budget. We would put it out 
of balance. Why? Because there is language that the Senate does not 
have that we are poised to put in the conference agreement for what 
they call the ``tobacco securitization.'' These are proceeds from the 
tobacco settlement that allows the District a revenue stream to issue 
securities to be able to use that money in their budget. They need the 
language provisions that we are working on in the conference report, or 
they are going to have a hole in their budget.
  So if we just took the gentleman's recommendation, and he says he is 
concerned with the finances of the District, we are going to knock a 
big hole in their budget by doing so.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Is my recollection incorrect that that is not 
in the House bill either?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, that is why it is to be 
added in conference. The District has been working on the language, 
which they have submitted to us, knowing that it needs to be inserted 
in the conference report. It is a part of the District's budget. They 
are relying upon these funds.
  But without having the conference so that we can insert that 
language, all other issues aside, the gentleman would blow a greater 
hole in the District's budget than the gentleman is trying to get them 
in additional Federal money. Because, as the gentleman points out, the 
additional Federal money that the Senate bill has that is not in the 
House bill is about $30 million or $35 million, only half of the hole 
that we would blow in the District's budget if we did not go to 
conference.
  And, of course, as the gentleman is aware, the Federal funds in the 
House bill, it is kind of like having a checking account or a savings 
account and drawing against it. We had an allocation for what we could 
do regarding the District; the Senate had the larger account, and that 
is the reason they provided a higher level of funding. We have all 
along expected that more funds would be made available to the House so 
that we could, for example, provide more Federal funding for the New 
York Avenue metro station in particular. That has been the plan all 
along, and it is proceeding accordingly.
  In addition, of course, to the financial problems that we would cause 
for the District were we to adopt the motion of the gentleman from 
Virginia, we would, of course, take out some other things. We would 
take out several million dollars of the drug testing and treatment 
program for persons on probation and parole who are required to stay 
drug free as a condition of remaining free on the streets.
  The House has the larger amount of money to make sure that we not 
only have the drug testing to get people locked right back up if they 
violate that condition of their probation or their parole, but also to 
provide the drug counseling and treatment that is necessary to try to 
help people not only to be drug free now but to be that way for the 
rest of their lives, even after the term of their probation or parole 
expires.
  If we adopted the gentleman's language, we would also be taking out 
$1 million in a public-private housing partnership that is being put 
together by the Washington Interfaith Network, where the Washington 
religious community is providing a lot of resources and effort to 
improve a particular housing project that we have some matching Federal 
money to work with the private effort that they are putting forth 
there.
  If we adopt the language of the gentleman from Virginia, we also 
would be giving a blank check to the Public Benefit Corporation. Well, 
what is the Public Benefit Corporation? That is the entity that runs 
D.C. General Hospital that, in addition to the $45 million subsidy that 
they receive from the District of Columbia, has been running additional 
deficits of over $100 million total over these last 3 years. We have 
language in the House bill that brings the PBC under control, to try to 
get its finances straightened up. The Senate bill does not have that 
language. By adopting the Senate bill we would perpetuate the abuse and 
the misuse, the illegal, I believe, management of funds at the D.C. 
General Hospital, which right now the Mayor, the Council, and the new 
members on the PBC board are trying to get a handle on the situation 
and change the structure of the D.C. General Hospital.
  If we do not have the incentive in this bill to say to them that they 
can no longer just take money that was not even budgeted and pour it 
into D.C. General Hospital, ignoring the law, as the General Accounting 
Office has made clear is what they have been doing, we will not get the 
D.C. General Hospital situation under control. We most certainly will 
not if we just adopt the motion of the gentleman from Virginia.
  There are a number of things that are either in the House bill or 
that we have been working to make sure are put into the conference 
report between the House and the Senate that would be destroyed by the 
motion of the gentleman. I do not think we want to adopt that motion.
  I could talk about other things. We could talk about the drug-free 
zones that would be wiped out; I could talk about the youth tobacco 
program, trying to keep kids away from tobacco, that the gentleman's 
motion would wipe out; but I think I have said enough to make the 
point.
  I urge Members to oppose the motion of the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First off, the Mayor and the Public Benefits Corporation seem to be 
working out their problems. Although I know language would be 
beneficial, we have not seen this particular language to which the 
chairman refers.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I am referring to the language that is in the House bill, 
although the gentleman correctly notes that we are working on possible 
revisions of that to put it in its best form.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, those 
subsequent revisions we have not seen.
  Now, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, who is the proper 
representative of the citizens of the District of Columbia, feels that 
the highest priority is to get this bill funded, notwithstanding issues 
with regard to the securitization of tobacco revenue and things like 
that. She is looking to the priorities of the Mayor, the city council 
and its citizens, and feels that this motion is in the best interest of 
those citizens, which I find to be a compelling argument to accept the 
Senate version.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I appreciate his comments.
  First, let me indicate that what I am going to say now has the sign-
off of the Mayor and the Chair of the city council, who want us to 
support the motion to instruct so that D.C. can get its money and we 
can recede to the Senate bill.
  D.C. General Hospital has been taken care of in the Senate bill. 
There is some money that can be moved, if necessary, to assist the 
transition, with very severe limits on it; and D.C., of course, can no 
longer fund the hospital above and beyond the appropriated amount. That 
has been fully taken care of in the House.
  The Senate budget as to securitization of the tobacco settlement, 
D.C. would have desired that.

                              {time}  1045

  But the necessity to get this bill done is overriding, and the mayor 
and the City Council are asking our colleagues on both sides to support 
the motion to instruct.

[[Page 20669]]

  The Senate bill is tough on the District, tougher than necessary, but 
it is a fair bill. It forces me to swallow hard. There are major 
attachments on that bill reflecting the views of this House as well as 
the Senate. There is a major violation of home rule right in our face.
  Congressional review of the Chief Financial Officer before that 
nomination becomes effective even after hearings and confirmation by 
the Council, a totally unnecessary, horrible violation of home rule. 
And if the mayor and the City Council are willing to let that go 
without a fight and a veto, I think it says a lot about the urgency of 
passing this bill because I am going to have something to say about 
what the specific injury is to the District in holding this bill 
longer.
  The Senate bill requires the District to pay back in 1 year amounts 
taken from its emergency reserves for emergencies, and that becomes 
very difficult for us because it is a city recovering from insolvency. 
If we take an amount from the reserves, the District asks that we have 
3 years to pay it back. We are not able to get that in the Senate bill. 
That is the kind of tough language the District would have to absorb 
through the Senate bill.
  But the Senate bill would, at least, make this small appropriation go 
away. And then what would we have? Would it be one down and eight to 
go? I have lost count. But they have got a lot to do before they get 
out of here. If they want to spend their time in October and November 
fighting over the D.C. bill, be my guest. Because we are not going to 
give up without a fight.
  If in fact we do not adopt the Senate version, what we are headed for 
is a veto and a protracted fight over the smallest appropriation 
consisting almost entirely of locally raised revenue. This would be an 
absurd fight this late in the year because it would be a fight over 
D.C.'s balanced budget with a surplus.
  The Senate version, of course, has riders we deplore but it bears us 
a fight over controversial language that are the pet concerns of this 
Member and that Member who in the House cannot wait for the D.C. 
appropriation because it allows them to undemocratically micromanage 
their views into the appropriation of a local jurisdiction, going 
against all of the philosophy of devolution that is spouted by the 
other side daily on this floor.
  Is it worth the fight to get their little curlicue in their budget 
and then have it vetoed by the President? I do not think so.
  Usually funds have not held up the D.C. appropriations since most of 
the money comes from D.C. and D.C. submits balanced budgets. Not this 
time. This appropriation is being held up largely because of a $35 
million dispute in a $2 trillion budget. That is what this House is all 
about.
  Now, understand that this dispute involves priorities that were 
funded in the President's budget and that the District cannot do 
without. So that means a fight, too. They have a fight on their hands. 
Do they want a fight? Do they want to stick around and fight? They are 
going to get their fight. Because we have got to get that Metro 
station.
  D.C. has come up with a third of the money. As far as the Metro 
station, one of our business people has written an extraordinary piece 
in the Washington Post saying he simply cannot believe that, with the 
millions of dollars he is pouring into the District, that the Congress 
would not let this Metro station go. It is key to the revitalization of 
the entire northeast quadrant of the city, to the city's economy 
itself, which is just rebounding from insolvency.
  We cannot put any more of our money into it. The control board has 
certified that it does not have more of its money to put into it. That 
is going to hold this bill up. We are not going to give up without that 
Metro stop. If my colleagues want to hang around and fight over it, 
they got themselves a fight.
  Members have always supported such infrastructure support. They did 
so when we were building the Convention Center because they knew that 
we were going to make millions of dollars for ourselves every year. And 
so the Congress funded an expansion of the Metro stop near the 
Convention Center when the President put the money in his budget, as he 
has now.
  This body, in one of the great moments frankly for bipartisan support 
for the Nation's capital, passed the College Access Act. There was 
strong bipartisan support in the Senate and the House because the House 
understood that we are the only jurisdiction in the United States that 
does not have a State college system, a State university system. So 
that now our youngsters can go to State colleges for low in-state 
college tuition fees.
  Why underfund in the second year, the upcoming year, when we have 
received such an outpouring of young people taking advantage, more than 
3,000 youngsters going all over the United States? It is mean spirited 
to underfund that, especially since the money for it is there in the 
President's budget.
  It is time to acknowledge the giant steps that the District has taken 
with its new reform mayor, Tony Williams, and its completely 
revitalized City Council that does tough oversight all the time. They 
did their homework. We found no fault with their budget.
  The delay into the fiscal year has already hurt the City's 
priorities. As I speak, 175 police cannot be hired. As I speak, we 
cannot put money into an after-school program to take our kids off the 
street during the high crime hours between 3 and 6. And the only reason 
is because this body has decided to hold our budget up, our balanced 
budget, and we cannot move ahead on anything new until they let our 
budget go.
  Is it worth it to put their own signature on somebody else's budget 
when they have done their homework? Let the District budget go.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me, as part of my response to some things that have 
been claimed, take issue with this idea that supposedly the bill 
consists almost entirely of local funds.
  In this bill, of the total of about $5.5 billion in operating 
expenses in the bill, about $3 billion of it is raised locally, about 
$2 billion of it is different Federal grant programs that comes from 
the Federal Government; and then over $400 million of it is direct 
appropriation of Federal funds to the District of Columbia.
  I do not consider $2.5 billion of Federal money or $400 million of 
appropriated money--and of course it exceeds that $400 million--I do 
not consider that to be small potatoes. I consider that to be a lot of 
taxpayers' money.
  We do not have that kind of direct appropriation to my hometown. It 
does not go to Oklahoma City. It does not go to Sacramento. It does not 
go to Minneapolis or St. Paul or even Chicago. It goes to Washington, 
D.C., as the Nation's Capital because we have a unique constitutional 
perspective and mandate regarding the Nation's Capital. Otherwise, we 
would not have this bill, we would not have a District appropriation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I want the gentleman to 
know that, of the $2 billion that the gentleman has referenced, only 
$400 million of that is for direct Federal funding, but most of it is 
for the kind of grants they do not appropriate for anybody else in the 
first place.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not accurate. 
The $2 billion in grants and such is in addition to the $414 million 
that the House appropriated. So the total of those is approximately 
$2.5 billion. And then we have the local funds of about $3 billion.
  This is significant taxpayers' money. Whether the figure is $2.5 
billion, $2 billion, or $400 million, I do not think any of us should 
say to the taxpayer with a straight face that that is not much money 
and this Congress should not be concerned about it and just let it go. 
We should be concerned.
  Now, the Senate bill has more than the $414 million. They have $448 
million. And that is what we have been working to reconcile.

[[Page 20670]]

  Now, I think a false illusion, and it has been fascinating in this 
process, Mr. Speaker, to see efforts to create a false illusion as 
though the House were not trying to work, for example, on this New York 
Avenue Metro station project. The problem is, we do not get money from 
the President's budget.
  I realize that Members of his own party can stand up here and say, 
``Oh, my goodness, they are not doing what the President's budget 
says.'' Well, if all we need is the President's budget, we do not need 
a House of Representatives and we do not need a Senate; just let the 
President call all the shots and act accordingly.
  The President does not give us money. The money comes from the 
taxpayers. And we have budgets within the House and within the Senate. 
We do not say we can spend as much money as the President says we can 
spend. We are only allowed to spend as much money as the House says can 
be spent if it should be spent.
  And this nonsense about saying, ``Oh, they have not done what the 
President's budget says;'' we do not always agree with the President. 
That may be a surprise to some people. Maybe they always do. But I do 
not always agree, and I try in good faith to work with everyone and 
work these differences out.
  As we have said throughout the process, it is really sad to see this 
effort to try to say to the business community and others in Washington 
that Congress is not helping with the New York Avenue Metro station. 
That is balderdash.
  Number one, we funded to the full extent that we were able to do 
within the amount of money that had been allocated in our budget. And 
secondly, we have said from the beginning that we expected when we got 
to the conference with the Senate that the Senate would have a higher 
number that would enable us to add the extra money for the New York 
Avenue Metro station, which is exactly what is happening.
  I really think it is sad to see this effort to demagogue and say, 
``Oh, they are not trying to help on this significant project,'' 
because we have from day one and that has been the plan all along that 
the extra money would be received in an allocation when we got to 
conference so that we would be able to do that.
  Also a false argument has been made saying, ``Oh, they are not taking 
care of the college tuition program.'' My goodness, we established that 
program in this bill last year with bipartisan support, as the 
gentlewoman mentions, and we have funded every penny that the program 
required plus a cushion of about 15 percent.
  I recognize some people want to expand the program and, therefore, 
they want more money or they want the amount that was originally 
projected to be needed until they found out how many students were 
actually participating and we knew then what the actual number was 
rather than going with an estimate that was done a year or more in 
advance. We funded the need and then some. But some people say, ``Oh, 
they have got to give us more than that because we created a number in 
advance that we projected would be necessary and we are wearing 
blinders as to what the actual needs of the program are.''
  Nevertheless, because the funds that go into that college tuition 
program remain available for future years and cannot be used for any 
other purpose we are going to increase the funding for that program. I 
think what we will end up doing is provide funding in advance for some 
of the college tuition that will not be spent until more than a year 
from now.
  That has been the situation all along. Yet some people try to create 
an illusion that there has been a different approach toward the college 
tuition or towards the New York Avenue Metro station.

                              {time}  1100

  The bill that we have before us should be resolved very soon. We have 
been working with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), we have been 
working with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton), we have been working with the administration, and we certainly 
have been working with the Senate. We expect that we are going to have 
this conference completed very quickly and the bill right back out to 
this Floor so that we can take care of the situation, the timing 
concern that the gentlewoman from the District mentions. We are 
sensitive to that. We are trying to move as quickly as we can. But the 
Senate did not pass its bill until last week, until last Thursday 
night. The House acted long before that. We have been waiting on the 
Senate. Now that the Senate has acted, we are able to go to conference, 
and finish up these details and get it right back here to the House 
floor. We expect to have this done quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to instruct conferees. As I said in 
my earlier statement, it is going to blow holes in the District's 
budget. It is going to create a lot more problems than it might ever 
solve. I oppose the motion to instruct and ask Members to oppose the 
motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me just elaborate on a few of the comments that the gentlewoman 
who represents the District of Columbia made. First of all, we have an 
opportunity to get the District of Columbia appropriations bill passed. 
We have only got two out of 13 appropriation bills done now. Finally we 
would get a third, with 10 to go.
  The second point she made is we are only asking for $34 million more. 
Now, we just passed an energy and water appropriations bill that was 
$880 million over the budget request. I would not want to suggest that 
a lot of that is pork, but I would suggest to the people who are 
watching this that they may want to look at some of the composition of 
that bill. We passed a defense appropriations bill. It was $1.4 billion 
less for military readiness that the President requested, yet there is 
$9 billion more for weapons programs, primarily manufactured in 
majority Members' districts.
  We are going to go through a number of appropriation bills in the 
last few days of this term, and all of them are going to see major 
increases, increases that make this D.C. bill dwarf by comparison. I 
mean, when we are talking about the District of Columbia bill compared 
to other bills, these numbers would get lost in the rounding. We are 
asking for $34 million is all, and that just brings it up to the budget 
request.
  Let me make a third point that the gentlewoman did not discuss and, 
that is, with regard to the prerogatives that we assume for our own 
congressional district. We have been adding programs that benefit our 
district. That is part of our job. Whether they fit within the original 
budget resolution or not, we are going to do the best we can for our 
district. But in addition to that, we jealously guard our district from 
letting any other Members mess around with it because we know our 
district best. We know what our priorities are.
  Imagine, I would ask my colleagues, consider how you would feel if 
the rest of your colleagues were telling you what you ought to be doing 
for your congressional district, what you ought to be doing to your 
congressional district. We would never tolerate this kind of 
scrutinizing, this kind of bashing in some ways, all this kind of 
micromanaging. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is saying, 
weighing all the priorities, understanding my district better than any 
of you do, and we know that that is the truth, what she wants is for us 
to recede to the Senate, get this bill passed, we are already past the 
beginning of the fiscal year, let the District of Columbia get its 
appropriation bill and let it go about its business. That is all she is 
asking.
  I am asking my colleagues, do nothing more but nothing less than we 
would do for our own congressional districts. Put yourselves in the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia's shoes. If you were 
representing the District of Columbia, what would you expect your 
colleagues to do? What we would expect our colleagues to do is to 
recede to the Senate, to get the bill

[[Page 20671]]

passed but most importantly to listen to us, to take our advice on our 
congressional district.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to respond to the gentleman from Oklahoma's 
comments, and then we will summarize our motion.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, there are two points on which I simply 
must take exception to the remarks of the Chair of the subcommittee 
when he talks about the $6 billion budget and says almost $4 billion of 
it is from the District and about $2 billion of it is from the Federal 
Government. Most of that $2 billion would never have come here until 
recently. In all of the years that the District budget came, Federal 
grants, most of them competitive Federal grants, were never even 
included in the District budget that came here. In recent years it has 
been and most of that money are grants. For example, it includes the 
transportation money that I get for the District out of another 
appropriation altogether, very large set of money, had nothing to do 
with this appropriation or with this chairman. It is done pursuant to a 
formula. And that is included in the $2 billion. That is most of the 
money he is talking about when he says $2 billion.
  Let me say what I mean when I say the President put the money in the 
budget. This gentleman would not have had $35 million to manipulate to 
other priorities. If there was not $35 million in the budget, if there 
were only the money funding the functions that the Federal Government 
took over, we would not even be having this discussion. But the Mayor, 
the city council Chair, the control board Chair and I went to the White 
House and said, ``We are funding two-thirds of the Metro stop, can the 
Federal Government put in one-third?'' What this chairman has done is 
to take a good part of that money and reallocate it to where he thinks 
the money should go, or else he would not have had any money to play 
around with at all. We do not agree with him. It is our city.
  He is for some of the money, for example, into the arboretum which is 
in the appropriation of the agriculture committee. We are asking that 
the money that was added to the D.C. appropriation, funded in the 
President's budget, be used for the purpose he funded it for and not be 
used for the purposes the gentleman wants it funded for. He would not 
have had it to deal with at all if we had not gone to the White House. 
I ask him to respect the reason the money was put in there, and it was 
the Metro stop and the other functions that we have mentioned.
  Finally, I say to my colleagues, it is not fair to you to ask you to 
vote against the motion to instruct because you will engage in a futile 
exercise. If you vote against the motion to instruct, you are voting 
for overtime on the smallest appropriation. You are guaranteed a fight 
on that appropriation, I promise you that.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to 
instruct, because I think it goes back on some very important 
priorities that are in this bill the way it currently is and that the 
Senate has avoided. There are things that were excluded in this bill 
that I think are important to the States that surround the District of 
Columbia, and yet we are willing to make an island under the Senate 
version, an island here in the District of Columbia on some important 
legislation such as an amendment presented by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Bilbray).
  He wanted to restrict, and do it with some authority, underage 
smoking. If you travel across the Potomac to Virginia, you will find 
that they have laws to restrict underage smoking. If you go to the east 
on Highway 50, you drive into Maryland and you will find that they have 
restrictions on underage smoking. But yet we are going to create an 
island here under the motion to instruct for the children in the 
District of Columbia and allow them this underage smoking, allowing 
kids to drive across the bridges or come into the District of Columbia 
and have less fear of buying cigarettes and getting into a life-style 
that will shorten their lives.
  In addition to that, the Senate has made the choice that they are 
willing to risk placing elementary school children in the proximity of 
drug users, people who take illegal drugs and inject them into their 
veins. The House version had a restriction on the needle exchange 
program, saying simply that we are going to place a higher priority on 
children than we are on drug users.
  We were going to take the very same language in the bill, we have the 
very same language as what the District of Columbia City Council has 
determined as a drug-free school zone, and we applied that to the 
program that gives needles to drug abusers. They will then take these 
needles and they inject illegal drugs into their veins. Now, there have 
been quite a few studies about the program, and what we have found is 
that in the area where needles are distributed, there are drug pushers, 
there are obviously drug users, and there are areas where the police 
have had to stay away by their own accord in order to let the program 
go so that we can give these needles to people who illegally use drugs.
  All we were trying to do in this bill was to restrict the area where 
these needles were distributed. The amendment that was cut out by the 
Senate did not exclude the program at all. It exists on private funds 
today. But there are 10 distribution points in the District of 
Columbia. Six of them are within the area known as a drug-free school 
zone. Some of them are as close as across the street from where 
children in the District of Columbia attend school. So the Senate has 
made a choice, and it is now supported in this motion to instruct to 
place a higher priority on drug users than on the children, a very 
disturbing thought. We should place the children in the District of 
Columbia in a higher priority than we do drug users.
  The Senate has gone on to take other very vital services and 
completely strike them out. They struck a hotline service that exists 
here in the District of Columbia. There are people in our society that 
are in dire need, they are in dire straits or in a difficult time and 
in the District of Columbia today you can call an 800 number and the 
people on that hotline will not let you off the phone until they 
connect you with the service that will meet your need, until that is 
connected, until that connection is made. But yet that was struck in 
this motion to instruct, that whole area is taken out. The Senate took 
it out, turning our backs on people that are truly in need.
  They also struck the money for a mentoring service. There are kids in 
the District of Columbia that do not have much of a future. They are in 
a single-parent household, some of them are living with grandparents, 
aunts and uncles, and this mentor organization provides an individual 
to stay with them and meet their needs, if it is going to school to 
help them with their studies and talk with their teachers, if that is 
going to court with them, if it is helping them just get the medication 
they need. The mentoring program accompanies these children to help 
them get a start in life, to give them a little bit of hope in a 
community that is in desperate need of hope. Yet the Senate and this 
motion to instruct will completely strike that program, leaving these 
children without the help that they need.
  They also went on to cut other grassroots community organizations, 
and $500,000 for a cleanup. We heard a lot of talk about how the Metro 
stop is more important than these programs and that we have taken 
money, reprioritized it through the Senate, through this motion to 
instruct, for a Metro stop, but we have overlooked important things in 
this community. We have overlooked these children, we have overlooked 
the hotline service, we have overlooked a program that just is trying 
to restrict where we distribute needles to drug abusers. We have 
problems in the hospital, overlooked by this motion to instruct, a 
hospital that has twice as many employees than they need, completely 
overlooked, and half a million dollars for an environmental cleanup, 
overlooked because we

[[Page 20672]]

want to change it to a Metro stop. I think the Metro stop is needed. I 
think we need some upgrades there. But to place that at a higher 
priority than the children of this community I think is wrongheaded, 
wrongminded. I think it is the wrong direction.
  I would suggest that we vote against this motion to instruct and that 
we keep the House version of what was passed here. It makes more sense, 
it is more compassionate, and it is the right thing to do.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and thank the gentleman also for his great leadership on behalf of 
the District of Columbia making decisions for itself.
  I also want to commend the distinguished gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for her tireless leadership on behalf 
of the people of the District and on behalf of the people of our 
country, because the principle of local control over some of these 
decisions is one that serves us all well in this country.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to instruct 
offered by my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The House bill that this body voted on earlier unfortunately included 
several riders that would interfere with the District of Columbia's 
ability to serve its citizens. Among these riders is the Tiahrt 
amendment, a bill that would kill the District's needle exchange 
programs, which have been proven effective in reducing the number of 
new HIV infections in the District and in this country, especially 
among children.
  Think about the children. 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 American males age 25 to 44 in the 
District. In spite of these statistics, this amendment that is 
contained in the House bill attempts to shut down programs that the 
local community has established to reduce new HIV infections.
  This Congress should be supporting the decisions that the local 
communities make about their health care and the health care of their 
people, not limiting local control. Numerous health organizations, 
including the American Medical Association, the American Public Health 
Association, have concluded that needle exchange programs are 
effective.
  Madam Speaker, 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 2 years, and they also 
conclusively found that needle exchange programs reduce HIV 
transmission and do not increase drug use.
  Madam Speaker, the President will veto this bill in the present form. 
If we support the motion to instruct, we will be able to send this bill 
to the President and have it signed into law. Here we are past the date 
of the end of the fiscal year, and we still have 11 appropriation bills 
out there.
  I just want to take another moment to go back, to the needle exchange 
program. Since the inception of the needle exchange program in the 
District of Columbia in the latter half of 1996 through 1999, the 
number of new IDU cases has fallen more than 65 percent from some 396 
in 1996 to 139 in 1997, which represents the most significant decline 
in new AIDS cases across all transmission categories over this 4-year 
period.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, if I may inquire of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), would it be agreeable if I take 2 minutes to 
close, then the gentleman take 2 minutes to close?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I think I may get wound up a 
little more. Madam Speaker, let us yield ourselves at least 3 minutes 
for this.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is important to remember that were we to 
adopt the motion of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and just 
accept everything that the Senate has done on this bill, first, we 
would blow a $61 million hole in the District's budget because we would 
not have the language that was intended to be put in and will be put in 
the conference agreement to enable the District to issue securities 
against the revenue they expect from the tobacco settlement and that 
the District is counting on in this budget this year. So we would cut 
out that $61 million and blow a hole in their budget.
  I do not know where they would try to make it up. If we were to adopt 
the gentleman's motion, we would also remove the public-private effort, 
not only to work with public housing but to work with the residents of 
public housing to improve their employment, which is part of the 
project of the Washington Interfaith Network that the House version 
funds but the Senate version does not.
  Also, were we to adopt the Senate version, we would cut out the 
funding that the House has to help teenagers, young women, in the 
District to promote abstinence, to try to stop the major problem with 
teenage pregnancy and sex and the difficulty it leads to for so many 
people. We would cut out that funding if we were to adopt the 
gentleman's motion.
  Also under the gentleman's motion, we would remove millions of 
dollars from the drug testing and drug treatment program that is a 
major effort to reduce crime in the District of Columbia. We would cut 
that out if we were to adopt the gentleman's motion.
  Madam Speaker, the things that were mentioned by the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) as I tried to make clear 
throughout, we always expected, and it is the intention in the 
conference, that more funds are now being made available to the House, 
which is the amount that we were counting on to provide the full 
requested funding on the New York Avenue Metro station. That has been 
the plan all along, that is what is happening; but we did not have the 
money available to us in the House in our subcommittee previously.
  It was not that we had the money and spent it elsewhere, we did not 
have the money. And we were going to say we are going to wipe out 
everything else, because we knew what was going to happen, and it has 
happened with or without adopting the motion of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), the bill, when it finally goes to the President's 
desk, will have the full funding for the New York Avenue Metro station 
and the full funding for the college tuition program, because any 
excess in that program would just be carried through to the next year 
anyway.
  We have tried to make that clear. That is not an issue. That is not 
an issue whatsoever. In the conference report, those are the things 
that we intend to do, but let us not undo the work of the House of 
Representatives. We had amendments that this House adopted by voice 
vote, because the support was so firm. We had an amendment by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) for example that was adopted in 
this House by 265 votes, very strong, very bipartisan votes that the 
gentleman's motion would wipe out.
  I urge defeat of the motion to instruct conferees, so we can very, 
very quickly go to conference, get these issues resolved and bring the 
confercne agreement right back to this floor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.

[[Page 20673]]

  I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook), that 
while some of the points are valid with regard to the House bill and 
the Senate bill, the conclusion is not one we could agree with.
  Let me respond to some of the points that have been made by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and by my colleague, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  My colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), suggested that 
in some way the Senate bill shortchanges youth programs, and yet the 
Senate bill adds $500,000 for a new community center for homeless 
runaway at-risk youth. The Senate bill adds another $250,000 to enhance 
reading skills of District public school students.
  There is a whole list of programs that the Senate bill has that I 
know that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) would not object to, but these are good programs 
that are not in the House bill.
  The main thing that I have to take issue with is that the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) 
have suggested that the House bill takes a more responsible approach to 
some of these difficult issues that we have been wrestling with, and I 
do not think that is the case.
  I would remind both the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and anyone who does not think that 
the Senate bill is a responsible bill that it passed the Senate 
unanimously, unanimously.
  Madam Speaker, with regard to this needle exchange program, the 
Senate bill that we are asking my colleagues to accept and that the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is willing to 
accept says we cannot use any Federal funds for needle exchange 
programs. We cannot use any local funds for needle exchange programs. 
We cannot use any public funds for needle exchange program. It is 
pretty tough language. But it is in the bill. And to suggest, as my 
friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), suggested that somehow 
the Senate is taking too liberal an approach here, I do not think that 
the Senate is some cabal of left-wing ideologues. I should not 
characterize the Senate.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, the gentleman mentioned the effort of the 
Senate. I was watching, and perhaps the gentleman was, when the Senate 
brought the bill up. Is the gentleman aware the consideration the 
Senate gave to this bill on the floor when they brought it up and 
passed it in about 30 seconds? That was the extent of the 
consideration, literally 30 seconds.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I am very 
grateful for the gentleman for making note of that, because I think 
that is exactly what we should be doing here.
  These are bills that were requested by the White House because they 
came from the District of Columbia City Council, the Mayor, the 
financial control board agreed to them. So this is a budget that 
already has been scrutinized. I do not know why we need to take more 
than 30 seconds. This is the District's bill. It makes sense. It is a 
responsible bill.
  We want to get our appropriations bills done. It is after October 1. 
We have a terrific chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations, he wants to get our work done. He is upset. And it 
is past October 1. The fiscal year has begun.
  We have an opportunity to get a bill passed that the Senate agrees 
to, that the White House will sign. We are only talking about $34 
million that was within the budget request. We are probably going to go 
$25 billion over our budget resolution. Here we are talking $34 
million. We can get this bill out of the way. Let us get our job done. 
The chairman has worked so hard, we ought to let him get his job done.
  Let us not mess around with these tangential issues, these 
ideological issues. Let us let the citizens of the District of Columbia 
decide what is in their best interests, let us recede to the Senate, 
let us get this appropriations bills signed, get our work done.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the 
electronic vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, 
H.R. 5212, as amended, immediately following this vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 219, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 510]

                               YEAS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss

[[Page 20674]]


     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Baca
     Brown (FL)
     English
     Eshoo
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Lazio
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Paul
     Riley
     Skelton
     Sweeney
     Vento
     Wise

                              {time}  1151

  Mrs. BONO and Messrs. RADANOVICH, HORN, BACHUS, HOLDEN, SMITH of 
Texas, EWING and LUCAS of Kentucky changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay''.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD and Messrs. OWENS, ORTIZ, and GREENWOOD 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Without objection, the Chair 
appoints the following conferees: Messrs. Istook, Cunningham, Tiahrt, 
Aderholt, Mrs. Emerson, and Messrs. Sununu, Young of Florida, Moran of 
Virginia, Dixon, Mollohan and Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________