Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for his hard work in this area. I know personally how active and vocal he has been as an advocate for the families and their children in the District that are most at risk. The gentleman is correct that we have worked with the District and provided funding for them, which they are using to carry on this program that the gentleman has been discussing, and we are happy to be able to do that so that this work might continue and that the District might be able to work with him to do so.

Mr. ISTOOK. That is fine.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had understood it was protocol for the chairman to have the last word. Now, if the gentleman from Virginia insists upon having the last word, certainly I will not interfere with his desire to do so.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the ranking member. One thing I think we need to make sure is mentioned is the D.C. tuition aid grant program, $17 million that we fund in this bill to enable young people in the District to achieve a college education. A vote against the bill, of course, would be a vote against that, as well as the other things, such as the drug treatment programs. Mr. Chairman, I would submit, frankly, that when we have a bill that is funding $25 million for drug testing and treatment, and a bill that is funding $8.5 million to encourage adoption, it is not unreasonable to expect that we do not want mixed messages by saying, well, let us have a needle exchange program that could interfere with that, or let us not make sure that adopting parents are related by blood or marriage. I doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the President would be so extreme as to veto this excellent bill because he did not like a couple of those provisions, especially seeing that he signed one into law last year.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I very much appreciate the arguments that we have heard from the gentlewomen regarding their support of this particular amendment. I feel obligated to point out that what they seek to strike from the bill is language that last year was approved by the House of Representatives, approved by the U.S. Senate, and signed into law by the President of the United States. Specifically, it is language that says that public funds shall not be expended for an initiative or a civil lawsuit to promote a vote in Congress for the District of Columbia. I well understand the desire of the proponents of this amendment and many other people to have that vote in the Congress, and I am sure that they understand also the special status which the Constitution of the United States gave to the District. The question is not whether they have the right to pursue their lawsuit. It is being pursued. It is being pursued without taxpayers' money being used to sue the Federal Government over this issue. They wish to be able to do so. They have already filed the action. They have pointed out before that legal representation was provided pro bono, which is to say, as a public service, and without charge, to finance their side of this legal action. It is not necessary to expend public money either to go back and pay people for work already done as a gift for free, nor is it necessary to expend the public money to enable people to have their day in court. They have their day in court. They are suing the Federal Government, challenging the Constitution of the United States. They have their right to do so. The issue here is whether taxpayers' money should be used to finance the suit. If Members believe taxpayers' money should be used to finance the suit, then of course they should vote for the amendment that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has offered. If Members do not believe taxpayers' money should be used to finance the suit, Members should vote against the amendment, which is a vote in favor of the same position that this Congress passed and the President signed into law last year. We had a vote in committee. The amendment was defeated in committee. We had a vote in the House of Representatives last year, and this same motion was defeated last year on a rollcall vote of 243 to 181. It is not a new issue. We have not injected it as a new issue in the bill this year. This is a continuation of the restriction on public money to finance such a lawsuit or an initiative petition. There is no need to spend taxpayers' money for people to have their day in court. They have their day in court and they are entitled to it.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, what are the goals we have? To save lives, to reduce crime, to reduce illegal drug usage which helps to reduce the great amount of crime that is associated with it. It is a real problem which this bill does great things to correct, and I want to make sure that Members and the public are aware of what this bill does without resorting to needle exchange with public money. And the question has been properly asked, why should we say not only the Federal funds, but local funds also should not be used for needle exchange program if they are taxpayer dollars? The amendment of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) that we are voting on offers the identical language that was approved last year by the House, approved by the Senate, and signed into law by the President. I want to make sure that people know that we already have in this bill a new initiative, a huge assault against illegal drug usage and the problems it causes in the District. The District funds drug treatment programs right now that are overcrowded because more than anything else there are so many people who are convicted felons convicted of drug offenses that are in these programs that they crowd out the ability of other people to get in. This bill creates with Federal dollars a $25 million new program of universal drug testing for the 30,000 people in the District of Columbia that are on probation or parole, most of them for things related to drug offenses. Included within that program is some $16 million for drug treatment. That will free up the money that the District is currently spending for drug treatment on those persons so they can expand the drug treatment even further. This is going to be the largest program in the country to combat illegal drug usage. It is being funded with our Federal tax dollars. It is a war on drugs. We are funding in the bill with Federal taxpayer dollars the most aggressive war on drugs of any community in the country, and we are doing it because this is our Nation's capital. But we do not want a mixed message. Is it too much to ask when we fund a war on drugs that the message is a war on drugs and not peaceful co-existence? I fear the needle exchange program would use public money to undercut and undermine the effort that we have undertaken in this bill to combat illegal drugs.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that we have received a request for from the District of Columbia, and in particular Linda Cropp, the council member who serves as the chairman of the city council. Mr. Chairman, this is to permit the Federally run Office of Offender Supervision, the Court Services and Offender Service Agency, to administer the sex offender registration pursuant to local ordinance recently adopted by the District of Columbia City Council. The City Council, on July 13, unanimously enacted their Sex Offender Registration Emergency Act of 1999 and the Sex Offender Registration Temporary Act of 1999. This establishes an effective sex offender registration and community notification system within the District. Because the Federal agency, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, is now involved with the supervision of persons on pretrial release, parole and probation, it is necessary that they be authorized to administer the sex offender registration program. This legislation permits them to do that. That also permits the District to come into compliance with Federal law requiring these registries to qualify for different Federal funding. The community notification portion, I understand, will be conducted by officials of the District Government, whereas the registration portion will be conducted under this amendment by the Federal agency that is involved with those that are being supervised while they are free on pretrial release, probation, parole, and so forth. Mr. Chairman, we have worked with the ranking member, and I understand we have the consent of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia as well, and I believe this amendment should prompt no objection from anyone and urge it be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter and supporting documentation with regard to this particular issue: Council of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, July 27, 1999. Re Federal legislation to effectuate D.C. sex offender registry. Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Norton: We write to request that you attach the enclosed draft legislation to the next available vehicle in Congress which may present itself this week during the budget process. At the Council's legislative session on July 13, 1999, we voted unanimously to enact the Sex Offender Registration Emergency Act of 1999 and the Sex Offender Registration Temporary Act of 1999. The purpose of this legislation was to establish an effective sex offender registration and community notification system in the District of Columbia and to bring the District into compliance with the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071), which establishes national criteria for such programs. A copy of the emergency act is enclosed. The Council vested the Metropolitan Police Department (``MPD'') with community notification duties regarding sex offenders. (See section 12 at pp. 10-11.) The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (``Agency''), established pursuant to section 11233 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, will be charged with the task of registering sex offenders in the District. (See sections 5, 8, 9 and 10.) The registration functions including obtaining the initial registration information of sex offenders and informing them of registration requirements, periodically verifying address information and other registration information, reporting changes in address, notifying other jurisdictions when sex offenders leave the District, entering information on D.C. offenders in the National Sex Offender Registry and providing information on sex offenders to the MPD. Since the Agency is already responsible for tracking and supervising released sex offenders under the Revitalization Act, it is efficient and cost-effective to have this entity perform registration functions. The U.S. Attorney's Office has informed us that federal legislation, in the form enclosed, is needed to clarify the ability of the Agency to carry out its registration functions. In view of the sensitive nature of monitoring sex offenders, it is important that each affected governmental entity be clearly empowered to perform its functions and that the transition of registration duties from the MPD to the Agency be as seamless and prompt as possible. Thank you for your assistance. Should you have any questions, we are available to discuss this matter with you at any time. Sincerely, Linda W. Cropp, Chairman. Harold Brazil, Chairman, Judiciary Committee. Enclosures: Draft federal legislation; Sex Offender Registration Emergency Act of 1999.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 25, line 12 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 66, line 13 be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have no further comments except my word of appreciation for the ranking member, the great people, Mr. Miconi, Mr. Albaugh, Mr. Monteiro, all the people who have worked on this bill.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) desires to withdraw his amendment by unanimous consent and that his language be included in the report in the bill.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), and although I have no personal familiarity with the circumstances he relates, I certainly share his concern about the proper enforcement of laws and the proper procedures being followed by the police within the District for the protection of the citizens, whether they reside here, visit here, or work here. I do want to point out to the gentleman that in the bill we have provided $1.2 million for the expenses of the Citizen Complaint Review Board, which is intended to deal with concerns about police procedure, whether they be activity or inactivity, actions or oversights. I would certainly encourage the persons involved in the incident that he mentioned to utilize the services of that board, which we have sought to fund, to assist the District in resolving what we know are some long-term accumulated problems regarding the police department that I know Chief Ramsey wants to aggressively correct. So I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I certainly hope that the Citizen Complaint Review Board will be of assistance to him. I also wanted to note, Mr. Chairman, on the Barr amendment, which was adopted by voice vote, there were a couple of concerns raised about whether there might be some unintended consequences. That is a conferencible item with the Senate, and we will certainly look at that to make sure that no unintended consequences occur. I know the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) feels the same way, and we will be looking at that in conference. I also wanted to state, Mr. Chairman, we will be having the vote shortly on the Norton amendment, which regards the ability to use public funds on the voting rights litigation that persons in the District have filed against the Federal Government. I expect, based upon past votes, that the House would reject that amendment and continue the prohibition, but I did want to note for the Record that I have initiated the conversation with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, about the possibility of addressing this in conference, where, rather than an outright prohibition, we might be able to make sure, of course, that nothing is reimbursed for past work, but that the District might consider having limited availability of local funds only for future litigation expenses in their discretion. I intend to address that with the conferees, and we will see if that might be the end result. Certainly, of course, the amendment remains before the House to work its will, as it has previously. Finally, Mr. Chairman, although we have devoted time today to talking about different amendments that are being offered to the bill, I think it is important that we all understand that there are some very important initiatives in this piece of legislation: the drug testing and treatment for the 30,000 offenders who are widescale violating the conditions of their freedom, that we need to get either off the streets or off of drugs, this is a major initiative; the adoption initiative; the approval of the management reforms by the District; the charter school assistance and strengthening within the District; and certainly approving the District's tax cut, which they have taken as a bold step in further improving the economic status of the District and everybody who resides here. Regardless of the vote on the amendments, I certainly intend to support the work of this House on the final bill. Regardless of how other Members may vote on the different amendments, I do not believe that any of them should be used by anyone as a reason to oppose the final passage of this bill, which I think helps to open a very strong and good chapter in better relations between the Federal Government and D.C., and to making the District a safer, better place with better schools for people who live here and work here and visit here, to be a better Capitol for our Nation. I commend the work of the persons who have worked together on this bill, both within this House and within the District government. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the entire bill.

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 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, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ISTOOK

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentlewoman's concerns, and I appreciate them. As I said before, I appreciate the great passion that she brings to her representation of D.C. I recognize the concerns that she has over the fact that she is not a voting Member on the floor of this body. I realize her argument. I do not think that undercuts the principle of whether or not the Congress of the United States has responsibilities and authority, even though it is not popular with everyone that we do so. Because just as the State constitutions create cities and counties and other political subdivisions, the United States Constitution created one special entity called the District of Columbia to be the seat of government for the Nation's Capitol. Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall have sole legislative authority over this District. We have delegated through home rule, but, nevertheless, the Constitution established a unique situation. Certainly, of course, the city has the Federal Government here, and it, frankly, has an assurance that this Federal Government is going to be here and will always enjoy the benefits as well as the things which are not benefits of being the seat of the Nation's Government. But we are given a responsibility over public policy within the District of Columbia, and that makes it a very difficult issue, because it brings forth the feelings and the passions such as the gentlewoman is expressing, and others are, too. But what we are considering in the bill with the amendments that different Members intend to offer on Thursday to this bill is not unique. I think it is very important to note, if my colleagues look at the amendments that the Committee on Rules chose to place in order for Thursday, we have the amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), which states that adoptions should, if they are by multiple persons, should be by persons who are related by blood or by marriage. That is an amendment which was adopted by this House of Representatives a year ago. The vote was 227 to 192. It is not something new that has been brought to bear in this bill. The amendment that the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) intends to offer regarding minors and tobacco is not new. It is virtually the same as the amendment which was considered by this House and passed last year by a vote of 283 to 138. The amendment that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) intends to offer is somewhat different from the one last year. Last year, it was adopted by a voice vote. There was not even a recorded vote requested. It was adopted by a voice vote. It would have prohibited the District from counting the results of the initiative and the election that was conducted regarding medical use of marijuana. But it is important to note that that provision was not only adopted by the House of Representatives, it was also approved by the United States Senate, and it was signed into law by the President of the United States. This year, the amendment which the Committee on Rules made in order for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) does not go that far. It simply states that the District shall not legalize a drug that is a restricted drug under schedule I of the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The amendment that causes some controversy that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) intends to offer on the floor this Thursday, which states that no public money may be used within the District for a program of needle exchange regarding illegal drug usage, that is not a new provision. That was adopted last year by the House of Representatives on a vote of 250 to 169. It was approved by the United States Senate. It was signed into law by the President of the United States. Maybe this year the President's advisors want him to change his mind and say he should veto it if that provision remains there. But the case remains that that is a provision that was approved by the House, the Senate, and the President a year ago. The language which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has in the bill in place of the Tiahrt language to say that the limitation is on the use of Federal funds, but not a limitation on local funds within the District, is an amendment which was disapproved last year by the House on a vote of 173 to 247. These are not new issues that have been brought up. In fact, I have encouraged my fellow Members not to bring up new issues to tack on to this particular bill. But I have recognized that positions have been taken by the House, by the Senate, by the President, acting in concert, and that those remain issues that have previously been considered appropriate for this body; and, therefore, we have the votes on Thursday on those issues again.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, it was within an omnibus appropriation.

Mr. ISTOOK. Well, as I said correctly, Mr. Chairman, the President signed that provision into law last year. Yes, it was in a bill that had many other things within it, but it was signed into law by the President, the very provision that his advisors now say that they would recommend he veto if that provision remained within the bill. We all know there is a great difference between what an advisor may counsel, what a member of one of the staff that works for us on Capitol Hill, what they may counsel, and what we may deem that we should do or choose to do. I think we have to have perspective. We have not brought up new issues within this bill. We have the continuation of the issues that have already been brought before this body, and this body has previously determined that they were appropriate to consider. Those are still live issues. These include issues that were signed into law by the President a year ago. I think it is appropriate for us to consider something that the President did agree to sign into law a year ago. We will have those debates Thursday. I will abide by the results. I expect that other Members of this body will abide by those results. I just want to put those in perspective, Mr. Chairman. But I do not want to lose track of the positive things that we have worked together to do in this bill. After we have those votes on the disagreements, I expect that we can and will and should unite to promote those things that we have put in this bill to make the District of Columbia a better, safer, more prosperous place to live, to work, and to visit. I think that is a worthwhile goal for the capital city of the United States of America. I hope that every Member of this body will join me in that commitment, regardless of our differences on different votes, unite together and approve this bill for the common good of the capital of the United States of America.