Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources. (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of our subcommittee.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to how much time remains on either side.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). (Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 330, I call up the bill (H.R. 3064) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding time. I think it is important to note that the reason we will discuss certain issues today is not because I, as author of the bill and chairman of the subcommittee, it is not because I have selected some issues to talk about. The reasons we will talk about certain issues today, the reason is that the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, sent to this Congress a veto of the bill that we sent him to fund the District of Columbia; and the President of the United States selected seven reasons in his veto message that he wrote to Congress, that William Jefferson Clinton said are the reasons he vetoed the bill and that people on the other side of the aisle have accepted as their reasons for opposing it. Now, contrary to what the gentleman has represented, I know personally because I am the one involved, that we have sought endlessly to talk with the Members on the other side of the aisle, with the delegate from the District of Columbia. I have talked personally with the President's representative, Mr. Jack Lew of the Office of Management and Budget; I have offered to sit down with him whenever he was willing to do so. They do not respond, and I will not yield, not at this time. We have offered. They just want to say, ``Oh, the District of Columbia ought to be free to make up its own mind if marijuana is going to be legal here.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that we can save $16 billion a year of taxpayers' money if the President and my friends on the other side of the aisle want to go ahead and surrender in the national war against drugs, because that is how much we are spending. And if we say that any part of the country can declare itself a safe haven, a safe haven for marijuana or any other drug, then the result is going to be we no longer have a national policy against drugs, we no longer have a national law, so why are we spending this $16 billion a year. I did not pick this fight. The President, the President vetoed the bill for this reason. The delegate for the District of Columbia took the House floor and in conversations has said, oh, let us make up our own minds whether we are going to honor and obey the drug laws that cover the rest of the country. I read an editorial in the paper today that said, the new phrase is probably going to be that D.C. stands for Drug Capital, because of the people that will want to flock here. And for people to use the pretense, the pretense that oh, this is about local control, this is about people able to make their own decisions, is such a red herring. If we want a Federal law, if it is important to have a Federal law on issues, then make it uniform and national. If not, it is no good. Mr. Speaker, I am reading from the President's veto statement that he sent to this Congress when he vetoed the bill. I am quoting his own words: ``Congress has interfered in local decisions in this bill in a way that it would not have done to any other local jurisdiction in the country,'' which, Mr. Speaker, is frankly absurd, because the drug laws cover every city in the country. He went on: ``The bill would prohibit the District from legislating with respect to certain controlled substances. Of course, he means marijuana.'' That is all the bill talked about. It says the District of Columbia has to follow the same drug laws as the rest of the country, and he objects to that. The President wrote this. He went on to say, ``Congress should not impose such conditions on the District of Columbia.'' Mr. Speaker, if he does not want a national law to combat the terrible scourge and plague of drugs, that is his position; he is entitled to it; and I am entitled to object. Let me read what the police chief of Washington, D.C. has submitted publicly about this whole effort. This is a statement that was put out by the police chief of Washington, D.C. a year ago when this issue arose, when they had this ballot initiative. I quote Chief Charles Ramsey: ``Legalized marijuana under the guise of medicine is a surefire prescription for more marijuana on the streets of D.C., more trafficking and abuse, and more drug-related crime and violence in our neighborhoods. This measure would provide adequate cover in the name of medicine for offenders whose real purpose is to manufacture, distribute, and abuse marijuana,'' end of quote. These efforts are going on around the country. The Clinton administration sent its drug policy people here to Capitol Hill to testify long before this bill ever came up, and it was the testimony from the Clinton White House's Drug Czar, General Barry McCaffrey, testimony to this Congress, quote: ``Medical marijuana initiatives present even greater risks to our young people. Referenda that tell our children that marijuana is a medicine sends them the wrong signal about the dangers of illegal drugs, increasing the likelihood that more children will turn to drugs. Permitting the medical use of smoked marijuana,'' and he put medical in quotes, ``will send a false and powerful message to our adolescents that marijuana use is beneficial. If pot is medicine, teenagers, rightfully, will reason, how can it hurt you? We can ill afford to send our children a mixed-up message on marijuana.'' Testimony to this Congress from the White House's own Drug Czar, now contradicted by the President. And then the Drug Enforcement Agency, part of the Clinton administration's Justice Department, in testimony just this summer to this Congress, told us, and I quote again: ``Medical marijuana is merely the first tactical maneuver in an overall strategy that will lead to the eventual legalization of all drugs,'' end of quote. That is the Clinton administration's own Justice Department. But now they say, under a pretext, a pretense of local control, let us say it is okay for Washington, D.C., under flimsy guidelines to legalize marijuana. We have had testimony from the Clinton administration's own antidrug people that we pay through our tax money confirming that smoking marijuana is never medically indicated. It is not necessary to relieve any suffering or health problems. And the Justice Department testified to us that these so-called medical marijuana initiatives are draining their resources, robbing them of time and money and resources, to fight the drug problems, because they have to deal with these spurious attempts to override national drug laws with these local initiatives. That is the administration's point. This bill expressly, expressly disproves the effort that was put on the ballot in Washington, D.C. to legalize marijuana in the Nation's Capital. If one votes against the bill, one is voting that it is okay to have drugs legalized in Washington, D.C. I do not care how much one claims to the contrary, I do not care how many smoke screens one throws up to us, that is the issue. Hide behind whatever one thinks is big enough to hide behind. But the issue is, are we against drugs? Are we trying to combat drugs before they get ahold of our kids, or are we declaring a truce and a surrender in the war against drugs? We are going to yield back this country one city at a time, one State at a time; go ahead and legalize it here, undercut all the drug laws, we do not care. I do not care what argument one throws up against it. That is the issue. The President of the United States picked the issue by vetoing this bill and sending the veto message that he did, and no one can escape that.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, there are other things that I will want to say before we conclude this debate, but in response to the, frankly, incredible statements just made by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), having spent many hours talking with people, having told the White House just yesterday talking with their designated person on this that I would meet with them, I would change my schedule any, and they just do not get back to me. We keep trying. We have talked with them. I have done it personally. I have talked with the gentlewoman. I have talked with other people. Ma'am, I take huge offense at your false representation that we have not been trying to work with people. I would further submit, if the gentlewoman and other people would publicly call on the President to renounce his veto message, where he vetoed this over the marijuana laws in D.C., we would make great progress. Why cannot the other side get this marijuana issue beside us by calling on the President to retract his veto message that the other side defends instead?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, President Clinton has just surrendered in America's war against drugs. I'm deeply disturbed by this veto, and every parent, teacher and police officer should be, too. His veto throws away all the good things this bill does: help D.C. kids go to college, get foster kids into permanent homes, clean up the foul Anacostia River, crack down on drug offenders, and reduce the size of D.C.'s bloated government. And for what? I'm appalled that the President of the United States would throw away all these good things just to support legalizing marijuana. This is about legalizing drugs in the nation's capital, and using that as a stepping-stone for the rest of the country. Nobody should be fooled by the pretense that this is a medical issue. That's a smoke screen. Anyone who reads D.C.'s proposed new law knows: It wouldn't even require an actual doctor's prescription. People who claim they have approval to use marijuana are allowed to authorize their friends to grow and keep it for them. It even requires government to provide the marijuana in some cases, at taxpayers' expense. It's wide-open for abuse. It conflicts with our national law making marijuana illegal. It's also a smokescreen for the President to pretend this is about local control. The Constitution (Article I, Section 8) puts Congress in charge of the laws in D.C. Furthermore, the items of which the President complains were all approved by him in last year's bill. They are not new. The only new thing is that now D.C. wants to legalize marijuana, and President Clinton wants to help them. Everyone who cares about combating drugs should be sickened by the Clinton veto. You can't have a war on drugs if the President turns the nation's capital into a sanctuary. This ends any hope of drug-free zones around D.C.'s schools. Every police officer, every teacher, and every parent who has ever fought against drugs should be crying today. The President is sending the worst possible message to our children. Not only that, he's exposing our nation's capitol to renewed ridicule over drug abuse and hijacking D.C.'s progress on the road to recovery from the Marion Barry days. I'm shocked that he would sacrifice everything just to promote a pro-drug agenda. Neither the Congress nor the country will accept what the President has done.'' Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the veto message of the President, together with the accompanying bill, H.R. 2587, be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Virginia and others try to couch this issue as though it were home rule or local control, as though every city in the country were able to divorce itself from the rest of the country and adopt laws contrary to the laws of the Nation and the laws of the States. Where do you draw the line? If you say it is okay for D.C. to legalize marijuana, as the gentleman from Virginia argues, then what is next? Do you say it is okay for them to legalize heroin, to legalize cocaine, to legalize murder, rape, arson? Where do you draw the line? Under the rationale of the gentleman from Virginia, it would be fine if the District of Columbia legalized anything whatsoever, disregarding the laws of the country, disregarding the Constitution that makes this Congress responsible for the laws of the District of Columbia. If you legalize marijuana, what is next? Cocaine? Heroin? Where do you draw the line? Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think some people could have been thoroughly confused by what we just heard from the gentleman from Maryland. This bill does not stop anybody from going to court. The gentleman knows better than what he has said. They have already filed that lawsuit. It is already in court. It is already pending before the judge for a decision. This bill did not stop anybody from going to court, it just said they cannot use taxpayers' money to finance the lawsuit. They have one of the best legal firms in the country, Covington & Burling, handling that lawsuit that the gentleman claims people are stopped from bringing. They are already in court. It is already happening. The bill just says we do not use taxpayers' money to pay for that lawsuit. To pretend that somehow this has denied people access to the courts would be just plain hogwash. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and all time I may yield, of course, will be for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this conference agreement on H.R. 2587, the conference report on the appropriations for the District of Columbia. In summary, Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement endorses the budget and tax cuts which were approved previously by the mayor and council of the District of Columbia. This helps the District's efforts to reorganize, to cut their costs, to reduce their overhead, to reduce the size of the peril of the District of Columbia government. In conference we retained the initiatives that were in the House bill such as major Federal funding for the largest ever crackdown on the link between crimes and drugs in the District of Columbia, going after, with drug testing and treatment, the 30,000 people in D.C. that are on probation or parole and that are a major source of further offenses. This is to make D.C. streets and neighborhoods far safer. The conference agreement includes incentives to move children from foster care to adoption in safe, loving, and permanent homes. It includes Federal funding for pediatric health initiatives for high-risk children in medically underserved parts of the District. This retains the new program of $17 million to assist students in the District of Columbia to go to college because they do not have a system of State institutions of higher education. This is to provide tuition assistance to kids in D.C. to be able to go to college. It has language in the House bill strengthening the popular charter school movement in the conference report also. The conference agreement has the Federal funding to clean up pollution in the Anacostia River and to complete design work and requirements to alleviate the traffic, stress and congestion with the 14th Street Bridge across the Potomac River between D.C. and northern Virginia. In total, Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement totals $429 million in Federal funds. That is 24 million below the House bill, 18 million above the Senate bill, $255 million less than last year's appropriation because of nonrecurring items that are not in this year's bill. In District funds, the conference agreement provides 6.8 billion of which 5.4 billion is operating funds; 1.4 is capital outlay. We also have language requested regarding payment of back attorney fees for indigent attorneys or attorneys representing indigents, we ratify the bold effort made by the City Council and the mayor in reducing taxes, and, Mr. Speaker, we have been careful, of course, regarding what some people refer to as social riders. There is nothing new, there is nothing new beyond what the House, the Senate and the President of the United States agreed upon last year. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the opportunity to work in a bipartisan basis. This bill passed the House before with 333 votes, a very bipartisan showing with a large number of Democrats as well as Republicans. However, Mr. Speaker, I am told that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle even though this is for all intents and purposes the same bill, the same piece of legislation, I am told that many of my Democratic colleagues sadly intend to oppose the bill, not because of something new, not because of something different, not because of something beyond what the President and the House and the Senate have previously agreed to regarding the District. Unfortunately it appears to be over a drug-related issue, that there is an effort by many activists and extremists to push an agenda to permit the legalization of marijuana in the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, a vote was held many months ago on an initiative referendum to establish such a law in D.C. Congress, the President, and the Senate and the House have acted before to make sure that D.C. does not enact drug laws that contravene the laws of the United States of America. However under the guise of saying that D.C. should have local control or home rule, unfortunately many of my colleagues are saying that this bill should be opposed because it does not permit the District of Columbia to legalize a drug that is illegal under federal law such as marijuana. It is sad, it is extremely sad to see an extremist position being taken by people to oppose this bill that does so much to help bring the District of Columbia back from the sad shape in which we saw it in recent years. Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate, and I hope that I am mistaken and that people will not oppose this bill because it requires the District of Columbia to stay in tune with the laws of the United States of America regarding drugs. Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to remind people article 1, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America says that legislative authority regarding the District of Columbia resides in the Congress of the United States. Some things are delegated to city government, but this Congress retains responsibility for the legislation within the District of Columbia. So, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to so-called social riders, there is in the bill a continued prohibition on having taxpayers' money used to finance a lawsuit whereby the District is asking to have a vote in the Congress of the United States in the House and in the Senate. It is the identical language that was signed into law by the President last year, and, in fact, frankly there is no need for public financing of such a lawsuit because it is already being fully financed privately and handled on behalf of the District by one of the leading law firms in the country. There is also people that say, oh, they are upset because the bill continues what the House and the Senate and the President agreed upon a year ago, to say that drug addicts will not be given free needles with taxpayers' money. There is already a private program that does that, Mr. Speaker. There is no need for taxpayers' money. I would hate to think that anyone would take an extremist position of opposing a bill that has anti-drug efforts, pro-education efforts, pro-law and order efforts, tax cuts and the budget that the District adopted, that they want to oppose all these things just because they want to use taxpayers' money for drug addicts to get free needles. Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible piece of legislation. We have worked closely with Members across the aisle, with the mayor, with the City Council. I very much appreciate the efforts of the members of the committee and subcommittee and staff on this, and I present this conference report to the House as something totally consistent with what had broad support, bipartisan support in the House just a few short weeks ago, and I would certainly hope that nobody will use some excuse to try to promote an extremist agenda in opposing this bill. I hope I am mistaken, but I fear that it will occur. I ask people to support this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the conference agreement on H.R. 2587, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000. The conferees met in early August and resolved the matters in disagreement between the House and Senate bills and filed the conference report on August 5th, a little more than a month ago. In summary, Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement endorses the budget and tax cuts approved by the District's mayor and council and helps the District's efforts to reorganize, cut costs and reduce overhead. We were able to retain in conference the initiatives that were in the House bill, such as Federal funding for the largest-ever effort to crack down on the link between drugs and crime, so that DC's streets and neighborhoods will be far safer. The conference agreement includes incentives to move children from foster care to adoption in a safe, loving, and permanent home, and $2.5 million in Federal funds to complete a community pediatric health initiative for high risk children in medically underserved areas of the District. We also retained the $17 million in Federal funds for tuition assistance to compensate for the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition so that DC high school graduates will have the same opportunities that exist for students in the 50 States who attend State-supported institutions of higher education. In addition, language in the House bill strengthening the popular charter school movement in the District has been retained. The conference agreement also includes Federal funding to clean up pollution in the Anacostia River and to complete all design and other requirements for the construction of expanded lane capacity for the 14th Street Bridge across the Potomac River. The conference agreement totals $429 million in Federal funds, which is $24 million below the House bill, $18 million above the Senate bill, and $255 million below last year's bill. The reduction of $255 million below last year's bill is due to several non-recurring items funded last year. The total conference amount of $429 million is $24 million below our 302(b) allocations in budget authority and outlays. In District funds, the conference agreement provides $6.8 billion of which $5.4 billion is in operating funds and $1.4 billion is for capital outlays. The $5.4 billion for operating expenses is $7 million below the House level, $29 million above the Senate bill, and $284 million above last year; however, included in this $284 million increase is a ``rainy day'' reserve fund of $150 million. The conferees have included language under Defender Services that will allow the use of $1.2 million to pay attorneys for their services to indigents in FY 1999. The DC Courts underestimated the amount required and as a result the attorneys will no longer be paid for their FY 1999 services after tomorrow and there is some question as to the appointment of counsel for the remainder of fiscal 1999. This language will allow the appointments and payments to continue without disruption. Title II of the conference agreement commends the District for reducing taxes and ratifies the city's action in that regard. One of the initiatives taken by local officials in agreeing to a consensus budget for fiscal year 2000 is to reduce income and property taxes by $300 million over the next 5 years, including $59 million in fiscal 2000. I will include a table showing the amounts recommended in the conference agreement compared with last year's enacted amount, the budget request, and the House and Senate recommendations. I will also include the fiscal year 2000 Financial Plan which is the starting point for the Independent auditor's comparison with actual year-end results as required by section 143 of this bill. Mr. Speaker, regarding social riders, the conference agreement includes language from the House bill that prohibits the use of both local and Federal funds for abortions except to save the life of the mothers or in cases of rape or incest. Another provision prohibits the use of both local and Federal funds to implement the District's ``domestic partners act''. The conference agreement also includes language prohibiting the use of Federal funds for any needle exchange program or to legalize or reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of marijuana and other controlled substances. The provision adopted by the House requiring the registration of sex offenders in the District of Columbia is also included in the conference agreement. This language was requested by the City Council after the budget was submitted. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the bipartisan bill that passed the House six weeks ago with 333 votes--the largest support in 10 years for a DC appropriations bill--included the exact same riders that are in this conference agreement. We need to make it very clear that each of these riders was included in last year's bill--a bill the President signed. There is nothing new in any of the provisions with the exception of the marijuana language which will allow the counting of the initiative ballots. Language in last year's bill did not allow that. There are not any new social riders to this bill--only those that had previously been approved by the Congress and signed into law by the President. And that's exactly what I have done. Now during the House debate on this bill, I told the Delegate from the District of Columbia that I would work in the conference to soften the restriction on the use of funds for the voting rights suit. I did that. But I am only one member and I was unable to convince my colleague on the subcommittee, let alone the Senate, to change the language. My point is I did what I said I would do. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should move ahead and adopt this conference report so that the District government can get about its business of governing and improving the delivery of services to its residents and visitors. In closing, I want to thank all of our Members for their hard work and their contributions to this bill. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, is the ranking Member and we work very well together. I especially want to thank our full Committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Young, for his support and for his sage advice and counsel. The staff has also done an outstanding job: John Albaugh, Steve Monteiro and Micah Swafford of my staff; and from the Committee staff, Migo Miconi, Mike Fischetti and Mary Porter. They really do a great job. Mary Porter has been doing this for 37 years--hard to imagine. I also want to thank the minority staff--Tom Forhan and Tim Aiken. This is a good, responsible conference report and I urge its adoption. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE99.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE99.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE99.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09SE99.004

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2587) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. It is pretty simple for most people to weigh the good against the bad. We have a bill that has a balanced budget, reducing the size of D.C. government, streamlining it, helping it be more efficient and effective. There is scholarship money for kids to go to college. Charter schools are strengthened so they are not trapped in dead-end schools. It has the Nation's best new program to fight the link between crime and drugs. We have in this bill opportunity; we have cleanup of the Anacostia River. We have all of these good, strong, solid things. What is on the other side of the scales? Well, it does not let the District of Columbia legalize marijuana, and it does not let them use public money for a lawsuit that is already filed and being paid by private individuals. Therefore, they say, that outweighs everything else in this bill. How extreme. How extreme. And for people to say they will reverse their support, 160 Democrats going to reverse their support because they have surrendered their vote to an extreme position, following the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia; that they have surrendered their vote. What will their constituents think? That outweighs all the good in this bill. To legalize drugs? No. Vote for the conference report.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would suggest that my friend across the aisle who has such harsh words for this provision ought to be addressing those harsh words to the President of the United States who signed into law the identical provision word for word, comma for comma of which they now complain. That is the only reason why it remains in this bill because it was approved last year by the House and Senate even before it was an omnibus bill and then signed into law by the President of the United States. Thus, that being the position that these bodies and the White House have taken before, it remains the position. We had a vote in the body. The Senate was not willing to change on this provision, and it remains as it has been. But it does not cost anybody their rights to pursue their desire to have a vote in this Congress. The lawsuit is in court. It is pending. They have one of the top-notch law firms in the country representing them at no cost to the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would have to note, in response to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and it has been a good opportunity to work together, but if we saw, as was presented, if the Members of her party, the Democrat members, the 160 or so who voted for the bill before, switch their votes today because the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia asks them to, then I would have to wonder who is in charge of the votes of those Members. Is it the people who elected them, or have they locked up their votes and handed them to another person, in the person of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia? I would certainly hope that constituents would not find that their Members of Congress changed their votes just because the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) was unhappy. I would have to say that the things of which they complain, and we have put in the Record a chart, these are nothing new. These are what has been part of this bill for years. We have not added anything new. The only thing new is in their extremism to get the District of Columbia to be legalizing drugs, to go back to the days when it was the butt of late night talk show jokes about the then mayor of the District and drug use. If they want the scenario of the Nation's Capital legalizing drugs, as they have said in their letters sent to other Members of this Congress, then the American people need to know that that is the agenda and that is why the Democrats in this body are opposing this bill, because it is their desire to legalize marijuana, which this bill does not permit our Nation's Capital to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2587, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman's very positive comments, and like him, I am committed to accenting the positive on this bill. As we know, I certainly made a commitment, which I intend to honor fully, regarding working something out on the local funding of the litigation that the gentleman described. We are both aware of the issues surrounding the needle program, and there is a privately funded needle program operated. We certainly do not intend anything that would go beyond the language the President signed into law last year. I do not think we are in a position where he would take the extreme action of vetoing something, but I look forward to working with the gentleman on this and all other issues in this conference.