Summary:
All articles in House section
House of Representatives
(House of Representatives - July 29, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H6603-
H6648]
[[Page
H6603]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Representatives
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2587.
{time} 1121
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 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 Mr. Bereuter in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Tuesday,
July 27, 1999, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendments printed in House Report 106-263 may be offered only by
a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill, shall be considered read, debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of
Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and
for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS
FEDERAL FUNDS
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for a
program to be administered by the Mayor for District of
Columbia resident tuition support, subject to the enactment
of authorizing legislation for such program by Congress,
$17,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such funds shall be used on behalf of eligible District
of Columbia residents to pay an amount based upon the
difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at
public institutions of higher education, usable at both
public and private institutions of higher education anywhere
within the United States: Provided further, That the awarding
of such funds shall be prioritized on the basis of a
resident's academic merit and such other factors as may be
authorized.
Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create
incentives to promote the adoption of children in the
District of Columbia foster care system, $8,500,000:
Provided, That such funds shall remain available until
September 30, 2001 and shall be used in accordance with a
program established by the Mayor and the Council of the
District of Columbia and approved by the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider my
amendment out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 3 Offered By Mr. Bilbray
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 106-263 offered by
Mr. Bilbray:
Page 65, insert after line 24 the following:
banning possession of tobacco products by minors
Sec. 167. (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any
individual under 18 years of age to possess any cigarette or
other tobacco product in the District of Columbia.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) Possession in course of employment.--Subsection (a)
shall not apply with respect to an individual making a
delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in pursuance of
employment.
(2) Participation in law enforcement operation.--Subsection
(a) shall not apply with respect to an individual possessing
products in the course of a valid, supervised law enforcement
operation.
(c) Penalties.--Any individual who violates subsection (a)
shall be subject to the following penalties:
(1) For any violation, the individual may be required to
perform community service or attend a tobacco cessation
program.
(2) Upon the first violation, the individual shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.
(3) Upon the second and each subsequent violation, the
individual shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100.
(4) Upon the third and each subsequent violation, the
individual may have his or her driving privileges in the
District of Columbia suspended for a period of 90 consecutive
days.
(d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply during fiscal
year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
[[Page
H6604]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this year, I reintroduced an amendment to the D.C. bill
to specifically address the issue that Washington, D.C. has been and
continues to be a sanctuary for underaged consumption and possession of
tobacco.
While Washington, D.C. has endeavored to reform and transform itself
as quickly as possible on many fronts, it has not addressed the issue
that it continues to be the only jurisdiction within hundreds of miles
of the Capitol still allowing underaged individuals to consume and
possess tobacco products.
I was intending, Mr. Chairman, to ask for a vote on this amendment.
The amendment passed overwhelmingly last year and I think sent a clear
message not only to Washington, D.C. that this is wrong and
inappropriate but to every jurisdiction in the United States and
especially to the children of this city and to the children of America,
that minor's possession and use of tobacco is not acceptable to this
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this motion, and I intend to
withdraw it because I have received, on July 27, a letter from Mayor
Williams specifically committing to introducing legislation that seeks
to prohibit teen tobacco use.
I talked last night with the mayor, Mr. Chairman, and he personally
committed to me that he will aggressively pursue this issue. He has
stated that he thinks it is an outrage that Congress and Washington has
not addressed this issue in the past and overlooked this issue,
something that all of us could have done a long time ago.
The mayor agrees with me that, if we are going to stand up and point
fingers at businesses and individuals who continue to encourage
individuals to smoke, then we have an obligation to point a finger at
ourselves and say even those of us in Congress and those of us in
Washington have not done our fair share of addressing this hideous
problem.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we give the new mayor of
Washington, D.C. a chance to initiate this legislation locally and that
we hold this amendment in abeyance for this year and give them the
chance to do the right thing that should have been done a long time
ago.
I make a personal commitment that I will work with the mayor and the
city council, but I also make the personal commitment that if
Washington, D.C.'s local government agencies will not do right by the
children of this city and by the children that come and visit the city,
then I, along with the majority of this body, will take action to
alleviate the problem.
I think Mayor Williams has made a sincere request. As an ex-mayor
myself, I cannot deny him this chance to make his contribution to
eliminating smoking within Washington, D.C. and hopefully setting an
example for those other States and other jurisdictions who have not
done the same in their area.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Bilbray) for working with me and working with Mayor Williams until
we reached a satisfactory accommodation on this matter. I want to
assure him that he should not have any doubt that we will, quote, do
right by our own children.
All that was necessary was the opportunity for the mayor, who has,
after all, had many things on his plate inheriting the kind of
government he did, to get to the notion that is close to him as well,
to aggressively seek legislation that would deal comprehensively with
smoking and tobacco use by children.
I do want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray),
though, for the way in which he pursued this and to indicate to other
Members that he went at this matter in a way that was satisfactory to
him and to us in the way I most prefer, by simply working with me until
we got it right. I appreciate the way in which he worked with me and
with the city.
I want to assure other Members that I always stand ready to work, to
reach a similar accommodation when they have problems that they want
solved in the city.
{time} 1130
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin as I did in the Appropriations
Committee by thanking Chairman Istook for the way he has chaired the
D.C. Subcommittee and prepared today's legislation.
He has made a sincere effort to familiarize himself with the affairs
of the District of Columbia by walking the city's streets, meeting with
Mayor Williams and the City Council on several occasions, and touring
the District's schools, its low income housing, the courts and the
administrative offices.
I know he shares my observation that many of the challenges and
issues confronting the District are identical to those confronting most
older urban communities.
At the same time, there are a number of circumstances that make the
District unique: it's a creation by Congress under Article I of the
U.S. Constitution and the seat of the federal government, it has a
large amount of federal property within its boundaries, and its local
laws and budget may be subject to congressional review and approval.
The fact that we are considering the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for fiscal Year 2000 reflects the District's unique
status.
In reviewing this legislation, let me begin by highlighting some of
its positive aspects: it fully funds the consensus budget both the
spending priorities and the tax cuts; it provides the federal funding
level requested by the administration; in fact, it brings additional
federal money to the District's aid, providing $8.5 million for
adoption incentives for foster children; $20 million for severance pay
for the Mayor's management initiative; more than $13 million for
expanded drug treatment programs; $17 million to fund the in-state
tuition benefits initiative and close to $20 million to help the Office
of Offender Supervision tackle the very serious crime problems caused
by repeat offenders; and it helps address a number of city concerns
from the operation of the District's courts to the hospitals.
On the whole, this legislation is an improvement over the bill that
came before us last year.
With all that said, I must still object to a number of provisions
that are in this legislation.
These provisions, known collectively as ``riders,'' prohibit or tie
the hands of District officials and its citizens to carry out and
implement their own prerogatives.
Perhaps when there was a large direct federal payment to the
District's general funds, some could justify prohibiting the District's
needle exchange program, its domestic partners' law, or even the
counting of ballots on its medical marijuana initiative.
The last direct payment in the fiscal 1999 appropriations act,
combined with federal grant assistance, comprised more than 43 percent
of the District's budget.
Federal funds could co-mingle with local funds making it difficult to
distinguish what was funded locally or with federal taxpayer dollars.
The 1997 Revitalization Act changed all that and eliminated the
concern that federal funds could co-mingle with local initiatives
deemed inappropriate by a majority in Congress.
For all intents and purposes, the 1997 Act discontinued the direct
federal payment to the District's general fund.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Jim, the table on page 22 of the committee report states
that $26,950,000 in federal funds go to the District's
general funds. While true from an accounting perspective, all
$26,950,000 is restricted on how it can be spent: $17 million
for in-state tuition, $8.5 million for incentives for
adoption, $1.2 million for the Citizens Complaint Review
Board, and $250,000 for Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any funds Congress may now appropriate to the general fund are for a
specific spending purpose and can only be spent for that purpose.
In return for the elimination of the direct federal payment, the
federal government assumed direct financial responsibility for
obligations and responsibilities traditionally assumed by state
governments.
Instead, the District will receive direct federal grants identical to
those received by most local jurisdictions or federal payments to
defray the cost of responsibilities assumed by most states and now
assumed by the federal government in the case of the District.
[[Page
H6605]]
In this light, adding language prohibiting the District from
implementing local initiatives, where no federal funds are involved, is
a blatant abuse of congressional power.
Using this bill to prohibit the District from using its resources to
fund a needle exchange program, a program proven effective at reducing
the spread of AIDS, is no different than Congress passing a law
prohibiting needle exchange programs specifically in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, but permitting other locally funded needle exchange programs
elsewhere to continue.
Prohibiting the District of Columbia from expending its use of local
funds to provide abortion services for its low-income residents, when
other jurisdictions are free to use local funds for similar programs is
just plain wrong.
Banning the use of local funds to prohibit the District from seeking
redress in federal court on its voting rights claim, is like telling
the City of Boerne it could not challenge the ``Religious Freedom
Restoration Act'' that it successfully argued before the Supreme Court.
Barring the District from implementing its local domestic partnership
law is like Congress passing a law to overturn Wichita, Kansas and
Jasper, Alabama's health benefit plan for their public employees,
teachers and police officers.
And, preventing the District's election officials from counting the
ballot on a local referendum is just plain anti-democratic.
You may object to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, but to
deny the election result from being tallied is like telling the
citizens of Farmington, Missouri or Manchester, New Hampshire they
cannot approve their referendums to finance building new schools.
Have we become so arrogant in power and fearful of local initiatives
that we have to block election results?
I know some will argue that these riders are merely an extension of
current law--they are.
But, the context and circumstances with which Congress might have
justified past intervention is now gone with the elimination of the
direct federal payment.
Federal taxpayer funds are no longer involved.
We should, therefore, no longer concern ourselves with the actions of
one local jurisdiction unless what we choose to do with it is applied
equally to all jurisdictions.
If a majority in Congress can accept the Labor-HHS restriction on
abortion as a compromise, then this Congress should accept similar
language restricting just the use of federal funds on these social
riders.
I was pleased to see that a majority of the full committee shared
this perspective and approved two amendments that will permit the
District to use non-federal funds to count the ballots on its
referendum on the medicinal use of marijuana and revive its needle
exchange program.
I should also note that the White House opposes these social riders
as well.
The White House: strongly opposes the prohibition on the use of both
federal and local funds to provide abortion services; objects to a
provision prohibiting the use of federal or local funds to implement or
enforce the District's Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic
Partners Act); strongly objects to the limit on attorneys' fees in
special education cases; and strongly opposes and may veto any bill
that includes a prohibition on the use of local funds for needle
exchange programs.
I encourage the House to respect the District's right to pursue its
own prerogatives with its own funds regardless of how members might
feel about the merits of the specific local initiative.
We should refrain from imposing any additional restrictions on the
District's use of its own funds and support possible floor amendments
that seek to remove those restrictions that still remain.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
absolutely right, and I just want to reiterate her comments.
The amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) was
intended to do the right thing for the children of the District of
Columbia. Tobacco usage is wrong, it is harmful, and we want to work
with him to reduce the amount of tobacco smoking on the part of youth,
particularly given the fact that almost 3,000 children start smoking,
teenagers, every day, and about a thousand of them are going to die as
a result.
So we had no objection to the good intentions on the part of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). The only problem is the
appropriateness of that kind of legislation that normally is considered
by the Committee on the Judiciary and in other manners other than the
Committee on Appropriations. But, again, we thank him for his
amendment. We particularly thank him for withdrawing it at this time,
and we certainly want to work with him in other constructive approaches
to reduce the amount of tobacco usage in the District.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will have inserted into the Record at the appropriate
place the letters from Mayor Williams, the American Heart Association,
and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and while introducing these
letters, I am hoping that the Mayor is trying to introduce these issues
and that he does not run into the opposition from organizations that
claim they want to do everything possible to initiate this common sense
approach, but mention that one little thing of saying that we will hold
everyone responsible, and that individuals, even young people, have to
be told quite clearly that they are going to be held responsible for
staying away from tobacco products as much as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking from a position as coming from a local
government agency; but I think anyone in this House would realize no
State, no jurisdiction is more anti-smoking than the State of
California. Some of us call it zealous. Even restaurants and bars do
not allow smoking in California. What we found in California was that
when a city in my district started enforcing a law against minor
possession of tobacco, they found out there was no such law even in
California.
So those of us in local government and State government looked around
and said, while we have been so busy pointing fingers at others, we
have not been asking ourselves what can we do in our jurisdictions. So
that is why I am asking that we ask the Federal district to do this,
the city council to do this.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this will give us the chance to be able to
set an example; and, hopefully today, while we are discussing this,
there are mayors, council members and legislators out there who will
ask, is it illegal in our jurisdiction; have we done as much to send a
clear message to children as Washington, D.C. is committed to doing
today?
Mr. Chairman, I hope all of us will look at ourselves and ask what
have we done to keep our children away from tobacco; and I think this
amendment, when it is passed by the city of D.C., will send that
message.
Mr. Chairman, the letters referred to above follow herewith:
July 27, 1999.
Hon. Brian Bilbray,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Bilbray: Thank you for your July 8th
letter regarding your continued efforts to fight the damaging
effects of teen smoking and your continuing contact with my
staff. While I appreciate and respect your concerns on this
issue, and indeed share your goal of greatly reducing the
consumption of tobacco by minors, I believe an amendment to
the FY 2000 District of Columbia Appropriations would not be
the appropriate vehicle. I am asking that you withdraw the
proposed amendment and allow elected District officials to
pursue the issues.
As our offices have discussed we share a common goal of
reducing teen tobacco consumption. In fact, I have often
stated that the care and safety of the District's children is
my top priority. To this end, I have spoken with
Councilmember Sandy Allen, the Chair of the Human Services
Committee, and she has agreed to hold a public hearing on the
issue of teen smoking as soon as the Council convenes after
its recess. In addition, I will introduce legislation that
seeks prohibitions on teen tobacco consumption when the City
Council returns.
I look forward to your continued support and good wishes. I
appreciate your willingness to work with local officials on
this issue.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.
____
American Heart Association, Office of Communications and
Advocacy,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Bilbray,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Bilbray: I am writing to express the
concerns of the American Heart Association regarding your
possible amendment to the District of Columbia Appropriations
bill (
H.R. 2587), that would penalize D.C. children who are
caught with cigarettes or other tobacco products.
We firmly believe that children who become addicted to
tobacco are victims of an industry whose own stated goal is
to find
[[Page
H6606]]
``replacement smokers'' for the hundreds of thousands of
people who die each year from using their products. By
targeting children with billions in marketing and advertising
dollars, the tobacco industry has been very successful in
maintaining a customer base, in spite of the 430,000 American
deaths from tobacco use each year. Adults in the tobacco
industry and retail establishments that facilitate underage
marketing of tobacco products--not children--are the ones who
need to be penalized. Unfortunately, the United States
Congress has a very clear record of letting tobacco companies
off the hook.
Because the repercussions of tobacco use are not always
immediately apparent to young people, we recognize your
motive to provide immediate consequences to children who are
caught with tobacco. We are not opposed to finding ways to
educate children on the dangers and consequences of tobacco
use and we would willingly work with you in the future to
accomplish this. However, unless this amendment is part of a
comprehensive approach to limit access to tobacco--and punish
adults who ignore access restrictions--then we believe it
will merely punish the victims of tobacco promotion.
Although I am respectfully asking members to vote against
your amendment, I hope there will still be opportunities for
us to work together in the future to eliminate underage
tobacco use.
Sincerely,
M. Cass Wheeler,
Chief Executive Officer.
____
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,
Washington, DC, July 27, 1999.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
opposes the amendment that may be offered later today by
Representative Bilbray to the District of Columbia
appropriations bill. This amendment would penalize youth for
possession of tobacco products without creating a thoughtful,
comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco use among children and
without first ensuring that adults who illegally sell tobacco
to kids are held responsible.
There is no silver bullet to reducing tobacco use among
kids, but this amendment, in the absence of other effective
policies, will do little to end tobacco's grip on the
children of D.C. There is little evidence to indicate that in
the absence of a concerted, comprehensive program, penalizing
kids will work to reduce tobacco use rates. A comprehensive
effective program should include not only vigorous
enforcement of laws against selling tobacco to kids but also
public education efforts, community and school based
programs, and help for smokers who want to quit.
The narrow focus of this amendment will further divert
resources away from effective enforcement of the current laws
that prohibit retailers from selling to kids. Although the
District of Columbia penalizes retailers for selling to kids,
this law is not being enforced adequately. According to
Department of Health and Human Services, compliance checks
showed that 42.3 percent of retailers in D.C. sell tobacco
products to minors.
Additionally, this amendment does not address the fact that
the tobacco industry spends $5 billion a year marketing its
products. Kids in D.C. continually see tobacco ads on
storefronts and in magazines. The tobacco industry's
marketing tactics work: 85 percent of kids who smoke use the
three most heavily advertised brands (Marlboro, Camel and
Newport). In addition, the success of the tobacco industry
targeted marketing efforts is evidenced by the fact that 75
percent of young African Americans smoke Newport, a brand
heavily marketed to this group.
Any discussion of holding children responsible for their
addiction to tobacco should only come after or as part of a
comprehensive approach, which insures that adults are being
held responsible for marketing and selling to children.
Therefore, we ask that you oppose this amendment. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew L. Myers,
Executive Vice President.
____
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,
Washington, DC, August 6, 1998.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member of Congress: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
opposes the amendment that may be offered later today by
Representative Bilbray to the District of Columbia
appropriations bill (
H.R. 4380). This amendment would
penalize youth for possession of tobacco products without
creating a thoughtful, comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco
use among children and without first ensuring that adults who
illegally sell tobacco to kids are held responsible.
There is no silver bullet to reducing tobacco use among
kids, but this amendment, in the absence of other effective
policies, will do little to end tobacco's grip on the
children of D.C. There is little evidence to indicate that in
the absence of a concerted, comprehensive program, penalizing
kids will work to reduce tobacco use rates. Rather,
experience from other cities indicates that only a
comprehensive program which vigorously enforces laws against
selling tobacco to kids through compliance checks of
retailers, and which included restrictions on tobacco ads
aimed at kids, will be effective.
The narrow focus of this bill will further divert resources
away from effective enforcement of the current laws that
prohibit retailers from selling to kids. Although the
District of Columbia penalizes retailers for selling to kids,
this law is not being enforced adequately. According to
Department of Health and Human Services, compliance checks
showed that 42.3 percent of retailers in D.C. sell tobacco
products to minors.
Additionally, this amendment does not address the fact that
the tobacco industry spends $5 billion a year marketing its
products. Kids in D.C. continually see tobacco ads on
billboards, bus shelters, and storefronts. The tobacco
industry's marketing tactics work: 85 percent of kids who
smoke use the three most heavily advertised brands (Marlboro,
Camel and Newport).
Any discussion of holding children responsible for their
addiction to tobacco should only come after or as part of a
comprehensive approach, which insures that adults are being
held responsible for marketing and selling to children.
Therefore, we ask that you oppose this amendment. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew L. Myers,
Executive Vice President.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 22, 1999.
Hon. Anthony Williams,
Mayor, District of Columbia,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mayor Williams: I would like to take this opportunity
to congratulate you on your recent election victory. As a
part-time resident of the District and as someone who spent
twenty years in local government, including two years as a
councilman and six years as a mayor, I wish you the best of
luck in your first term as Mayor of the District of Columbia.
As you may already be aware, during the House of
Representatives Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 appropriation process I
introduced an amendment to the D.C. Appropriation Act (
H.R.
4380) that prohibited individuals under the age of 18 years
old from possessing and consuming tobacco products in the
District of Columbia. This amendment received strong
bipartisan support and passed through the House by a 238-138
vote on August 6, 1999, but unfortunately it was not included
in the final conference report.
At the time I introduced this amendment only 21 states in
the nation had minor possession laws outlawing tobacco, and
my amendment would have added the District of Columbia to
this growing list of states. My amendment was very straight
forward and easy to understand. It contained a provision to
exempt from this prohibition a minor individual ``making a
delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in his or her
employment'' while on the job.
My amendment also contained a penalty section, which was
modeled after the state of Virginia's penalty section for
minors found in violation of tobacco possession. For the
first violation, the minor would, at the discretion of the
judge, be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50. For
the second violation, the minor would be subject to a civil
penalty not to exceed $100. For a third or subsequent
violation, the minor would have his or her driver's license
suspended for a period of 90 consecutive days. The 90 day
suspension is consistent with penalties for minor possession
of alcohol in the District of Columbia. Any minor found to be
in possession of tobacco may also be required to perform
community service or attend a tobacco cessation program. Each
of these penalties are at the judge's discretion.
I understand that the District of Columbia already has
tough laws on the books to address the issue of sales of
tobacco to minors. My amendment focused specifically on the
possession of tobacco products by minors in order to put
minor possession of tobacco with minor possession of alcohol.
All three cities in my district have passed anti-possession
laws, so I am not asking the District to do anything my own
communities have not already done.
I was an original cosponsor of the strongest anti-tobacco
bill in the 105th Congress, the Bipartisan NO Tobacco for
Kids Act (
H.R. 3868). The intentions of my amendment was to
encourage youth to take responsibility for their actions. If
individuals under the age of 18 know they will face a penalty
for possession of tobacco, they might be deterred from ever
starting to smoke in the first place.
As we move forward in the 106th Congress I would like to
know whether you plan to address this issue at the local
level. I think it is important that all levels of government
work together to help stop children from smoking. I also
believe we should send the right message to our children, and
the first step in this process would be for the District of
Columbia to join Virginia, Maryland, and the twenty other
states who have passed youth possession and consumption laws.
I would appreciate knowing of your intentions, and to work
with you and Members on both sides of the aisle in 1999 to
make sure this important piece of legislation becomes law.
Again, congratulations on your new position as Mayor and I
look forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Bilbray,
Member of Congress.
[[Page
H6607]]
____
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor, District of Columbia,
May 21, 1999.
Hon. Brian Bilbray,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Bilbray: Thank you for your letter sharing
your concern about teenage smoking in the District and your
congratulations on my November election to the Office of
Mayor.
In response to your inquiry, the District of Columbia is
addressing the issue of teen smoking through a variety of
methods. DC Public Schools has two programs--The Great
American Smoke-out and ``2 Smart 2 Smoke''--to raise
children's awareness of the dangers of smoking. Additionally,
the Department of Health supports the efforts of local and
community-based initiatives like ``Ad-Up, Word-Up and Speak-
Out,'' which encourages school age children to perform their
own research on the effects of advertising directed at
children.
Finally, the school system recently elevated possession of
tobacco to a ``level one'' infraction--which means violators
could incur the most severe disciplinary measures, including
possible suspension. To assess our progress, the District is
tracking youth smoking related data through grants provided
by the Center for Disease Control.
I want to assure you that I share your concerns about
teenage smokers. Sandra Allen, Chairperson of the City
Council's Committee on Human Services, and I are working
diligently to strengthen enforcement which should, in
combination with the other initiatives, result in a real
reduction of teenage smoking. We believe that the cumulative
effect of these initiatives will have a marked improvement on
the incidence of teen smoking.
Again thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront of
my attention. I agree that discouraging our youth from
engaging in this terrible habit of smoking is very important
in the fight to curtail tobacco's tragic and inevitable long-
term effects.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 8, 1999.
Hon. Anthony Williams,
Mayor, District of Columbia,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mayor Williams: I would like to thank you for your
response to my letter regarding my youth consumption
amendment and the tobacco strategies in the District of
Columbia. I appreciate the information you provided regarding
the programs the D.C. public schools are implementing to
combat youth smoking.
As I mentioned in my first letter, in the 105th Congress I
introduced an amendment to
H.R. 4380, FY 1999 District of
Columbia appropriations bill that sought to prohibit
individuals under the age of 18 years from possessing and
consuming tobacco products in the District of Columbia. This
amendment received strong bipartisan support and passed
through the House by a 238-138 vote on August 6, 1998.
I intend to reintroduce this amendment to the FY 2000 D.C.
Appropriations Bill later in the year when Congress takes up
this legislation. I believe at the same time we are educating
youths on the dangers of tobacco and curtailing
advertisements by the tobacco industry, we need to strive for
new and innovative ways to reduce tobacco use along with
sending a clear message to our youth that we will not
tolerate the consumption of tobacco. This is what a youth
consumption law in the District will accomplish.
My amendment contains a penalty section, which is modeled
after the state of Virginia's penalty section for minors
found in violation of tobacco possession. For the first
violation, the minor would, at the discretion of the judge,
be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50. For the
second violation, the minor would be subject to a civil
penalty not to exceed $100. For a third or subsequent
violation, the minor would have his or her driver's license
suspended for a period of 90 consecutive days. The 90 day
suspension is consistent with penalties for minor possession
of alcohol in the District of Columbia. Any minor found to be
in possession of tobacco may also be required to perform
community service or attend a tobacco cessation program. Each
of these penalties are at the judge's discretion (I have
attached a draft of my amendment for your convenience).
My amendment focuses specifically on the possession of
tobacco products by minors in order to put minor possession
of tobacco with minor possession of alcohol. If we are really
serious about reducing youth consumption of tobacco we need
to put it on the same level as alcohol and treat it equally.
Again, thank you for responding to my original letter and I
look forward to working with you on this important issue.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional
questions.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Bilbray,
Member of Congress.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook).
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his
support in providing $250,000 in the bill to continue the mentoring
program for at-risk children and the resource hotline for low-income
individuals in the District.
Last year, Congress appropriated $250,000 to the International Youth
Service and Development and Corporation to provide these worthwhile and
much-needed services to the District. During the past year, I had the
privilege to visit the southeast White House in Anacostia, where some
of these services are provided to low-income citizens and at-risk
children. I am pleased to report to the Congress that this minor
allocation of $250,000 is making a real difference in the lives of many
families who were struggling to survive and protect their children who
are at risk in their community.
Is it the chairman's intention that this appropriation of $250,000 be
used by the city to continue the good work which is currently being
accomplished by the International Youth Service Development
Corporation?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
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. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
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.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 3, line 7, through page 25, line 12 is
as follows:
Federal Payment to the Citizen Complaint Review Board
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for
administrative expenses of the Citizen Complaint Review
Board, $1,200,000, to remain available until September 30,
2001.
Federal Payment to the Department of Human Services
For a Federal payment to the Department of Human Services
for a mentoring program and for hotline services, $250,000.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee
Operations
For salaries and expenses of the District of Columbia
Corrections Trustee, $183,000,000 for the administration and
operation of correctional facilities and for the
administrative operating costs of the Office of the
Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the
National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33, approved August
5, 1997; 111 Stat. 712): Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, funds appropriated in this Act for
the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee shall be
apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget
and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal
agencies.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts
For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia
Courts, $100,714,000 to be allocated as follows: for the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $7,209,000; for the
District of Columbia Superior Court, $75,245,000; for the
District of Columbia Court System, $9,260,000 and $9,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2001, for capital
improvements for District of Columbia courthouse facilities:
Provided, That of the amounts available for operations of the
District of Columbia Courts, not to exceed $2,500,000 shall
be for the design of an Integrated Justice Information System
and that such funds shall be used in accordance with a plan
and design developed by the courts and approved by the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate: Provided
[[Page
H6608]]
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, all
amounts under this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by
the Office of Management and Budget and obligated and
expended in the same manner as funds appropriated for
salaries and expenses of other Federal agencies, with payroll
and financial services to be provided on a contractual basis
with the General Services Administration, said services to
include the preparation of monthly financial reports, copies
of which shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President
and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental
Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform
of the House of Representatives.
Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts
For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section
11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under
the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act), payments for
counsel appointed in proceedings in the Family Division of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under chapter
23 of title 16, D.C. Code, and payments for counsel
authorized under section 21-2060, D.C. Code (relating to
representation provided under the District of Columbia
Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of
Attorney Act of 1986), $33,336,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such funds shall be administered by
the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the
District of Columbia: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, this appropriation shall be
apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget
and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for expenses of other Federal agencies.
Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
for the District of Columbia
For salaries and expenses of the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, as
authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997, as amended (Public Law
105-33, approved August 5, 1997; 111 Stat. 712),
$105,500,000, of which $69,400,000 shall be for necessary
expenses of Parole Revocation, Adult Probation and Offender
Supervision, to include expenses relating to supervision of
adults subject to protection orders or provision of services
for or related to such persons; $17,400,000 shall be
available to the Public Defender Service; and $18,700,000
shall be available to the Pretrial Services Agency: Provided,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts
under this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the
Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in
the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and
expenses of other Federal agencies: Provided further, That of
the amounts made available under this heading, $32,192,000
shall be used in support of universal drug screening and
testing for those individuals on pretrial, probation, or
parole supervision with continued testing, intermediate
sanctions, and other treatment for those identified in need,
of which not to exceed $13,245,000 shall be available until
September 30, 2001, for treatment services.
Children's National Medical Center
For a Federal contribution to the Children's National
Medical Center in the District of Columbia, $3,500,000 for
construction, renovation, and information technology
infrastructure costs associated with establishing community
pediatric health clinics for high risk children in medically
underserved areas of the District of Columbia.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS
OPERATING EXPENSES
Division of Expenses
The following amounts are appropriated for the District of
Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund
of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically
provided.
Governmental Direction and Support
Governmental direction and support, $162,356,000 (including
$137,134,000 from local funds, $11,670,000 from Federal
funds, and $13,552,000 from other funds): Provided, That not
to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of
the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the
City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation
for official purposes: Provided further, That any program
fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available
for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of
the District of Columbia: Provided further, That no revenues
from Federal sources shall be used to support the operations
or activities of the Statehood Commission and Statehood
Compact Commission: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission
to Statehood from its own locally-generated revenues:
Provided further, That all employees permanently assigned to
work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid from funds
allocated to the Office of the Mayor.
Economic Development and Regulation
Economic development and regulation, $190,335,000
(including $52,911,000 from local funds, $84,751,000 from
Federal funds, and $52,673,000 from other funds), of which
$15,000,000 collected by the District of Columbia in the form
of BID tax revenue shall be paid to the respective BIDs
pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996
(D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the
Business Improvement Districts Temporary Amendment Act of
1997 (D.C. Law 12-23): Provided, That such funds are
available for acquiring services provided by the General
Services Administration: Provided further, That Business
Improvement Districts shall be exempt from taxes levied by
the District of Columbia.
Public Safety and Justice
Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease of
135 passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement only,
including 130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use,
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year, $785,670,000 (including $565,411,000
from local funds, $29,012,000 from Federal funds, and
$191,247,000 from other funds): Provided, That the
Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not
to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Department
of Fire and Emergency Medical Services of the District of
Columbia is authorized to replace not to exceed five
passenger-carrying vehicles annually whenever the cost of
repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds three-fourths of the
cost of the replacement: Provided further, That not to exceed
$500,000 shall be available from this appropriation for the
Chief of Police for the prevention and detection of crime:
Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department
shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate on efforts to increase
efficiency and improve the professionalism in the department:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, or Mayor's Order 86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the
Metropolitan Police Department's delegated small purchase
authority shall be $500,000: Provided further, That the
District of Columbia government may not require the
Metropolitan Police Department to submit to any other
procurement review process, or to obtain the approval of or
be restricted in any manner by any official or employee of
the District of Columbia government, for purchases that do
not exceed $500,000: Provided further, That the Mayor shall
reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for
expenses incurred in connection with services that are
performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia
status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall
be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for
these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the
District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That
such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the
District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding
proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the
availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting
payment in advance for emergency services involved: Provided
further, That the Metropolitan Police Department is
authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn officers, with leave for a
50 officer attrition: Provided further, That no more than 15
members of the Metropolitan Police Department shall be
detailed or assigned to the Executive Protection Unit, until
the Chief of Police submits a recommendation to the Council
for its review: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be
available for inmates released on medical and geriatric
parole: Provided further, That commencing on December 31,
1999, the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House
of Representatives, quarterly reports on the status of crime
reduction in each of the 83 police service areas
established throughout the District of Columbia.
Public Education System
Public education system, including the development of
national defense education programs, $867,411,000 (including
$721,847,000 from local funds, $120,951,000 from Federal
funds, and $24,613,000 from other funds), to be allocated as
follows: $713,197,000 (including $600,936,000 from local
funds, $106,213,000 from Federal funds, and $6,048,000 from
other funds), for the public schools of the District of
Columbia; $17,000,000 from local funds being the Federal
payment appropriated earlier in this Act for resident tuition
support at public and private institutions of higher learning
for eligible District residents; $10,700,000 from local funds
for the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; and
not less than $27,885,000 from local funds for public charter
schools: Provided, That if the entirety of this allocation
has not been provided as payments to any public charter
schools currently in operation through the per pupil funding
formula, the funds shall be available for new public charter
schools on a per pupil basis: Provided further, That $480,000
of this amount shall be available to the District of Columbia
Public Charter School Board for administrative costs;
$72,347,000 (including $40,491,000 from local funds,
$13,536,000 from Federal funds, and $18,320,000 from other
funds) for the University of the District of Columbia;
$24,171,000 (including $23,128,000 from local funds, $798,000
from Federal funds and $245,000 other funds) for the Public
Library; $2,111,000 (including $1,707,000 from local funds
and $404,000 from Federal funds) for the Commission on the
Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That the public
schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept
not to exceed 31
[[Page
H6609]]
motor vehicles for exclusive use in the driver education
program: Provided further, That not to exceed $2,500 for the
Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for the President of the
University of the District of Columbia, and $2,000 for the
Public Librarian shall be available from this appropriation
for official purposes: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this Act may be made available to pay the
salaries of any District of Columbia Public School teacher,
principal, administrator, official, or employee who knowingly
provides false enrollment or attendance information under
article II, section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide
for compulsory school attendance, for the taking of a school
census in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes'',
approved February 4, 1925 (D.C. Code, sec. 31-401 et seq.):
Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be
available to subsidize the education of any nonresident of
the District of Columbia at any District of Columbia public
elementary and secondary school during fiscal year 2000
unless the nonresident pays tuition to the District of
Columbia at a rate that covers 100 percent of the costs
incurred by the District of Columbia which are attributable
to the education of the nonresident (as established by the
Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools):
Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be
available to subsidize the education of nonresidents of the
District of Columbia at the University of the District of
Columbia, unless the Board of Trustees of the University of
the District of Columbia adopts, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, a tuition rate schedule that will
establish the tuition rate for nonresident students at a
level no lower than the nonresident tuition rate charged at
comparable public institutions of higher education in the
metropolitan area.
Human Support Services
Human support services, $1,526,361,000 (including
$635,373,000 from local funds, $875,814,000 from Federal
funds, and $15,174,000 from other funds): Provided, That
$25,150,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until
expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia
employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That a
peer review committee shall be established to review medical
payments and the type of service received by a disability
compensation claimant: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia shall not provide free government services such as
water, sewer, solid waste disposal or collection, utilities,
maintenance, repairs, or similar services to any legally
constituted private nonprofit organization, as defined in
section 411(5) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11371),
providing emergency shelter services in the Di
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
House of Representatives
(House of Representatives - July 29, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H6603-
H6648]
[[Page
H6603]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
House of Representatives
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2587.
{time} 1121
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (
H.R. 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 Mr. Bereuter in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose on Tuesday,
July 27, 1999, all time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
The amendments printed in House Report 106-263 may be offered only by
a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill, shall be considered read, debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of
Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and
for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPROPRIATIONS
FEDERAL FUNDS
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for a
program to be administered by the Mayor for District of
Columbia resident tuition support, subject to the enactment
of authorizing legislation for such program by Congress,
$17,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That such funds shall be used on behalf of eligible District
of Columbia residents to pay an amount based upon the
difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at
public institutions of higher education, usable at both
public and private institutions of higher education anywhere
within the United States: Provided further, That the awarding
of such funds shall be prioritized on the basis of a
resident's academic merit and such other factors as may be
authorized.
Federal Payment for Incentives for Adoption of Children
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create
incentives to promote the adoption of children in the
District of Columbia foster care system, $8,500,000:
Provided, That such funds shall remain available until
September 30, 2001 and shall be used in accordance with a
program established by the Mayor and the Council of the
District of Columbia and approved by the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider my
amendment out of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 3 Offered By Mr. Bilbray
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 106-263 offered by
Mr. Bilbray:
Page 65, insert after line 24 the following:
banning possession of tobacco products by minors
Sec. 167. (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any
individual under 18 years of age to possess any cigarette or
other tobacco product in the District of Columbia.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) Possession in course of employment.--Subsection (a)
shall not apply with respect to an individual making a
delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in pursuance of
employment.
(2) Participation in law enforcement operation.--Subsection
(a) shall not apply with respect to an individual possessing
products in the course of a valid, supervised law enforcement
operation.
(c) Penalties.--Any individual who violates subsection (a)
shall be subject to the following penalties:
(1) For any violation, the individual may be required to
perform community service or attend a tobacco cessation
program.
(2) Upon the first violation, the individual shall be
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50.
(3) Upon the second and each subsequent violation, the
individual shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed
$100.
(4) Upon the third and each subsequent violation, the
individual may have his or her driving privileges in the
District of Columbia suspended for a period of 90 consecutive
days.
(d) Effective Date.--This section shall apply during fiscal
year 2000 and each succeeding fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bilbray) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
[[Page
H6604]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this year, I reintroduced an amendment to the D.C. bill
to specifically address the issue that Washington, D.C. has been and
continues to be a sanctuary for underaged consumption and possession of
tobacco.
While Washington, D.C. has endeavored to reform and transform itself
as quickly as possible on many fronts, it has not addressed the issue
that it continues to be the only jurisdiction within hundreds of miles
of the Capitol still allowing underaged individuals to consume and
possess tobacco products.
I was intending, Mr. Chairman, to ask for a vote on this amendment.
The amendment passed overwhelmingly last year and I think sent a clear
message not only to Washington, D.C. that this is wrong and
inappropriate but to every jurisdiction in the United States and
especially to the children of this city and to the children of America,
that minor's possession and use of tobacco is not acceptable to this
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to withdraw this motion, and I intend to
withdraw it because I have received, on July 27, a letter from Mayor
Williams specifically committing to introducing legislation that seeks
to prohibit teen tobacco use.
I talked last night with the mayor, Mr. Chairman, and he personally
committed to me that he will aggressively pursue this issue. He has
stated that he thinks it is an outrage that Congress and Washington has
not addressed this issue in the past and overlooked this issue,
something that all of us could have done a long time ago.
The mayor agrees with me that, if we are going to stand up and point
fingers at businesses and individuals who continue to encourage
individuals to smoke, then we have an obligation to point a finger at
ourselves and say even those of us in Congress and those of us in
Washington have not done our fair share of addressing this hideous
problem.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we give the new mayor of
Washington, D.C. a chance to initiate this legislation locally and that
we hold this amendment in abeyance for this year and give them the
chance to do the right thing that should have been done a long time
ago.
I make a personal commitment that I will work with the mayor and the
city council, but I also make the personal commitment that if
Washington, D.C.'s local government agencies will not do right by the
children of this city and by the children that come and visit the city,
then I, along with the majority of this body, will take action to
alleviate the problem.
I think Mayor Williams has made a sincere request. As an ex-mayor
myself, I cannot deny him this chance to make his contribution to
eliminating smoking within Washington, D.C. and hopefully setting an
example for those other States and other jurisdictions who have not
done the same in their area.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Bilbray) for working with me and working with Mayor Williams until
we reached a satisfactory accommodation on this matter. I want to
assure him that he should not have any doubt that we will, quote, do
right by our own children.
All that was necessary was the opportunity for the mayor, who has,
after all, had many things on his plate inheriting the kind of
government he did, to get to the notion that is close to him as well,
to aggressively seek legislation that would deal comprehensively with
smoking and tobacco use by children.
I do want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray),
though, for the way in which he pursued this and to indicate to other
Members that he went at this matter in a way that was satisfactory to
him and to us in the way I most prefer, by simply working with me until
we got it right. I appreciate the way in which he worked with me and
with the city.
I want to assure other Members that I always stand ready to work, to
reach a similar accommodation when they have problems that they want
solved in the city.
{time} 1130
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin as I did in the Appropriations
Committee by thanking Chairman Istook for the way he has chaired the
D.C. Subcommittee and prepared today's legislation.
He has made a sincere effort to familiarize himself with the affairs
of the District of Columbia by walking the city's streets, meeting with
Mayor Williams and the City Council on several occasions, and touring
the District's schools, its low income housing, the courts and the
administrative offices.
I know he shares my observation that many of the challenges and
issues confronting the District are identical to those confronting most
older urban communities.
At the same time, there are a number of circumstances that make the
District unique: it's a creation by Congress under Article I of the
U.S. Constitution and the seat of the federal government, it has a
large amount of federal property within its boundaries, and its local
laws and budget may be subject to congressional review and approval.
The fact that we are considering the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for fiscal Year 2000 reflects the District's unique
status.
In reviewing this legislation, let me begin by highlighting some of
its positive aspects: it fully funds the consensus budget both the
spending priorities and the tax cuts; it provides the federal funding
level requested by the administration; in fact, it brings additional
federal money to the District's aid, providing $8.5 million for
adoption incentives for foster children; $20 million for severance pay
for the Mayor's management initiative; more than $13 million for
expanded drug treatment programs; $17 million to fund the in-state
tuition benefits initiative and close to $20 million to help the Office
of Offender Supervision tackle the very serious crime problems caused
by repeat offenders; and it helps address a number of city concerns
from the operation of the District's courts to the hospitals.
On the whole, this legislation is an improvement over the bill that
came before us last year.
With all that said, I must still object to a number of provisions
that are in this legislation.
These provisions, known collectively as ``riders,'' prohibit or tie
the hands of District officials and its citizens to carry out and
implement their own prerogatives.
Perhaps when there was a large direct federal payment to the
District's general funds, some could justify prohibiting the District's
needle exchange program, its domestic partners' law, or even the
counting of ballots on its medical marijuana initiative.
The last direct payment in the fiscal 1999 appropriations act,
combined with federal grant assistance, comprised more than 43 percent
of the District's budget.
Federal funds could co-mingle with local funds making it difficult to
distinguish what was funded locally or with federal taxpayer dollars.
The 1997 Revitalization Act changed all that and eliminated the
concern that federal funds could co-mingle with local initiatives
deemed inappropriate by a majority in Congress.
For all intents and purposes, the 1997 Act discontinued the direct
federal payment to the District's general fund.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Jim, the table on page 22 of the committee report states
that $26,950,000 in federal funds go to the District's
general funds. While true from an accounting perspective, all
$26,950,000 is restricted on how it can be spent: $17 million
for in-state tuition, $8.5 million for incentives for
adoption, $1.2 million for the Citizens Complaint Review
Board, and $250,000 for Human Services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any funds Congress may now appropriate to the general fund are for a
specific spending purpose and can only be spent for that purpose.
In return for the elimination of the direct federal payment, the
federal government assumed direct financial responsibility for
obligations and responsibilities traditionally assumed by state
governments.
Instead, the District will receive direct federal grants identical to
those received by most local jurisdictions or federal payments to
defray the cost of responsibilities assumed by most states and now
assumed by the federal government in the case of the District.
[[Page
H6605]]
In this light, adding language prohibiting the District from
implementing local initiatives, where no federal funds are involved, is
a blatant abuse of congressional power.
Using this bill to prohibit the District from using its resources to
fund a needle exchange program, a program proven effective at reducing
the spread of AIDS, is no different than Congress passing a law
prohibiting needle exchange programs specifically in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, but permitting other locally funded needle exchange programs
elsewhere to continue.
Prohibiting the District of Columbia from expending its use of local
funds to provide abortion services for its low-income residents, when
other jurisdictions are free to use local funds for similar programs is
just plain wrong.
Banning the use of local funds to prohibit the District from seeking
redress in federal court on its voting rights claim, is like telling
the City of Boerne it could not challenge the ``Religious Freedom
Restoration Act'' that it successfully argued before the Supreme Court.
Barring the District from implementing its local domestic partnership
law is like Congress passing a law to overturn Wichita, Kansas and
Jasper, Alabama's health benefit plan for their public employees,
teachers and police officers.
And, preventing the District's election officials from counting the
ballot on a local referendum is just plain anti-democratic.
You may object to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, but to
deny the election result from being tallied is like telling the
citizens of Farmington, Missouri or Manchester, New Hampshire they
cannot approve their referendums to finance building new schools.
Have we become so arrogant in power and fearful of local initiatives
that we have to block election results?
I know some will argue that these riders are merely an extension of
current law--they are.
But, the context and circumstances with which Congress might have
justified past intervention is now gone with the elimination of the
direct federal payment.
Federal taxpayer funds are no longer involved.
We should, therefore, no longer concern ourselves with the actions of
one local jurisdiction unless what we choose to do with it is applied
equally to all jurisdictions.
If a majority in Congress can accept the Labor-HHS restriction on
abortion as a compromise, then this Congress should accept similar
language restricting just the use of federal funds on these social
riders.
I was pleased to see that a majority of the full committee shared
this perspective and approved two amendments that will permit the
District to use non-federal funds to count the ballots on its
referendum on the medicinal use of marijuana and revive its needle
exchange program.
I should also note that the White House opposes these social riders
as well.
The White House: strongly opposes the prohibition on the use of both
federal and local funds to provide abortion services; objects to a
provision prohibiting the use of federal or local funds to implement or
enforce the District's Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic
Partners Act); strongly objects to the limit on attorneys' fees in
special education cases; and strongly opposes and may veto any bill
that includes a prohibition on the use of local funds for needle
exchange programs.
I encourage the House to respect the District's right to pursue its
own prerogatives with its own funds regardless of how members might
feel about the merits of the specific local initiative.
We should refrain from imposing any additional restrictions on the
District's use of its own funds and support possible floor amendments
that seek to remove those restrictions that still remain.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
absolutely right, and I just want to reiterate her comments.
The amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) was
intended to do the right thing for the children of the District of
Columbia. Tobacco usage is wrong, it is harmful, and we want to work
with him to reduce the amount of tobacco smoking on the part of youth,
particularly given the fact that almost 3,000 children start smoking,
teenagers, every day, and about a thousand of them are going to die as
a result.
So we had no objection to the good intentions on the part of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). The only problem is the
appropriateness of that kind of legislation that normally is considered
by the Committee on the Judiciary and in other manners other than the
Committee on Appropriations. But, again, we thank him for his
amendment. We particularly thank him for withdrawing it at this time,
and we certainly want to work with him in other constructive approaches
to reduce the amount of tobacco usage in the District.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will have inserted into the Record at the appropriate
place the letters from Mayor Williams, the American Heart Association,
and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and while introducing these
letters, I am hoping that the Mayor is trying to introduce these issues
and that he does not run into the opposition from organizations that
claim they want to do everything possible to initiate this common sense
approach, but mention that one little thing of saying that we will hold
everyone responsible, and that individuals, even young people, have to
be told quite clearly that they are going to be held responsible for
staying away from tobacco products as much as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking from a position as coming from a local
government agency; but I think anyone in this House would realize no
State, no jurisdiction is more anti-smoking than the State of
California. Some of us call it zealous. Even restaurants and bars do
not allow smoking in California. What we found in California was that
when a city in my district started enforcing a law against minor
possession of tobacco, they found out there was no such law even in
California.
So those of us in local government and State government looked around
and said, while we have been so busy pointing fingers at others, we
have not been asking ourselves what can we do in our jurisdictions. So
that is why I am asking that we ask the Federal district to do this,
the city council to do this.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this will give us the chance to be able to
set an example; and, hopefully today, while we are discussing this,
there are mayors, council members and legislators out there who will
ask, is it illegal in our jurisdiction; have we done as much to send a
clear message to children as Washington, D.C. is committed to doing
today?
Mr. Chairman, I hope all of us will look at ourselves and ask what
have we done to keep our children away from tobacco; and I think this
amendment, when it is passed by the city of D.C., will send that
message.
Mr. Chairman, the letters referred to above follow herewith:
July 27, 1999.
Hon. Brian Bilbray,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Bilbray: Thank you for your July 8th
letter regarding your continued efforts to fight the damaging
effects of teen smoking and your continuing contact with my
staff. While I appreciate and respect your concerns on this
issue, and indeed share your goal of greatly reducing the
consumption of tobacco by minors, I believe an amendment to
the FY 2000 District of Columbia Appropriations would not be
the appropriate vehicle. I am asking that you withdraw the
proposed amendment and allow elected District officials to
pursue the issues.
As our offices have discussed we share a common goal of
reducing teen tobacco consumption. In fact, I have often
stated that the care and safety of the District's children is
my top priority. To this end, I have spoken with
Councilmember Sandy Allen, the Chair of the Human Services
Committee, and she has agreed to hold a public hearing on the
issue of teen smoking as soon as the Council convenes after
its recess. In addition, I will introduce legislation that
seeks prohibitions on teen tobacco consumption when the City
Council returns.
I look forward to your continued support and good wishes. I
appreciate your willingness to work with local officials on
this issue.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.
____
American Heart Association, Office of Communications and
Advocacy,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Brian Bilbray,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Bilbray: I am writing to express the
concerns of the American Heart Association regarding your
possible amendment to the District of Columbia Appropriations
bill (
H.R. 2587), that would penalize D.C. children who are
caught with cigarettes or other tobacco products.
We firmly believe that children who become addicted to
tobacco are victims of an industry whose own stated goal is
to find
[[Page
H6606]]
``replacement smokers'' for the hundreds of thousands of
people who die each year from using their products. By
targeting children with billions in marketing and advertising
dollars, the tobacco industry has been very successful in
maintaining a customer base, in spite of the 430,000 American
deaths from tobacco use each year. Adults in the tobacco
industry and retail establishments that facilitate underage
marketing of tobacco products--not children--are the ones who
need to be penalized. Unfortunately, the United States
Congress has a very clear record of letting tobacco companies
off the hook.
Because the repercussions of tobacco use are not always
immediately apparent to young people, we recognize your
motive to provide immediate consequences to children who are
caught with tobacco. We are not opposed to finding ways to
educate children on the dangers and consequences of tobacco
use and we would willingly work with you in the future to
accomplish this. However, unless this amendment is part of a
comprehensive approach to limit access to tobacco--and punish
adults who ignore access restrictions--then we believe it
will merely punish the victims of tobacco promotion.
Although I am respectfully asking members to vote against
your amendment, I hope there will still be opportunities for
us to work together in the future to eliminate underage
tobacco use.
Sincerely,
M. Cass Wheeler,
Chief Executive Officer.
____
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,
Washington, DC, July 27, 1999.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
opposes the amendment that may be offered later today by
Representative Bilbray to the District of Columbia
appropriations bill. This amendment would penalize youth for
possession of tobacco products without creating a thoughtful,
comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco use among children and
without first ensuring that adults who illegally sell tobacco
to kids are held responsible.
There is no silver bullet to reducing tobacco use among
kids, but this amendment, in the absence of other effective
policies, will do little to end tobacco's grip on the
children of D.C. There is little evidence to indicate that in
the absence of a concerted, comprehensive program, penalizing
kids will work to reduce tobacco use rates. A comprehensive
effective program should include not only vigorous
enforcement of laws against selling tobacco to kids but also
public education efforts, community and school based
programs, and help for smokers who want to quit.
The narrow focus of this amendment will further divert
resources away from effective enforcement of the current laws
that prohibit retailers from selling to kids. Although the
District of Columbia penalizes retailers for selling to kids,
this law is not being enforced adequately. According to
Department of Health and Human Services, compliance checks
showed that 42.3 percent of retailers in D.C. sell tobacco
products to minors.
Additionally, this amendment does not address the fact that
the tobacco industry spends $5 billion a year marketing its
products. Kids in D.C. continually see tobacco ads on
storefronts and in magazines. The tobacco industry's
marketing tactics work: 85 percent of kids who smoke use the
three most heavily advertised brands (Marlboro, Camel and
Newport). In addition, the success of the tobacco industry
targeted marketing efforts is evidenced by the fact that 75
percent of young African Americans smoke Newport, a brand
heavily marketed to this group.
Any discussion of holding children responsible for their
addiction to tobacco should only come after or as part of a
comprehensive approach, which insures that adults are being
held responsible for marketing and selling to children.
Therefore, we ask that you oppose this amendment. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew L. Myers,
Executive Vice President.
____
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,
Washington, DC, August 6, 1998.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member of Congress: The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
opposes the amendment that may be offered later today by
Representative Bilbray to the District of Columbia
appropriations bill (
H.R. 4380). This amendment would
penalize youth for possession of tobacco products without
creating a thoughtful, comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco
use among children and without first ensuring that adults who
illegally sell tobacco to kids are held responsible.
There is no silver bullet to reducing tobacco use among
kids, but this amendment, in the absence of other effective
policies, will do little to end tobacco's grip on the
children of D.C. There is little evidence to indicate that in
the absence of a concerted, comprehensive program, penalizing
kids will work to reduce tobacco use rates. Rather,
experience from other cities indicates that only a
comprehensive program which vigorously enforces laws against
selling tobacco to kids through compliance checks of
retailers, and which included restrictions on tobacco ads
aimed at kids, will be effective.
The narrow focus of this bill will further divert resources
away from effective enforcement of the current laws that
prohibit retailers from selling to kids. Although the
District of Columbia penalizes retailers for selling to kids,
this law is not being enforced adequately. According to
Department of Health and Human Services, compliance checks
showed that 42.3 percent of retailers in D.C. sell tobacco
products to minors.
Additionally, this amendment does not address the fact that
the tobacco industry spends $5 billion a year marketing its
products. Kids in D.C. continually see tobacco ads on
billboards, bus shelters, and storefronts. The tobacco
industry's marketing tactics work: 85 percent of kids who
smoke use the three most heavily advertised brands (Marlboro,
Camel and Newport).
Any discussion of holding children responsible for their
addiction to tobacco should only come after or as part of a
comprehensive approach, which insures that adults are being
held responsible for marketing and selling to children.
Therefore, we ask that you oppose this amendment. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Matthew L. Myers,
Executive Vice President.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 22, 1999.
Hon. Anthony Williams,
Mayor, District of Columbia,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mayor Williams: I would like to take this opportunity
to congratulate you on your recent election victory. As a
part-time resident of the District and as someone who spent
twenty years in local government, including two years as a
councilman and six years as a mayor, I wish you the best of
luck in your first term as Mayor of the District of Columbia.
As you may already be aware, during the House of
Representatives Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 appropriation process I
introduced an amendment to the D.C. Appropriation Act (
H.R.
4380) that prohibited individuals under the age of 18 years
old from possessing and consuming tobacco products in the
District of Columbia. This amendment received strong
bipartisan support and passed through the House by a 238-138
vote on August 6, 1999, but unfortunately it was not included
in the final conference report.
At the time I introduced this amendment only 21 states in
the nation had minor possession laws outlawing tobacco, and
my amendment would have added the District of Columbia to
this growing list of states. My amendment was very straight
forward and easy to understand. It contained a provision to
exempt from this prohibition a minor individual ``making a
delivery of cigarettes or tobacco products in his or her
employment'' while on the job.
My amendment also contained a penalty section, which was
modeled after the state of Virginia's penalty section for
minors found in violation of tobacco possession. For the
first violation, the minor would, at the discretion of the
judge, be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50. For
the second violation, the minor would be subject to a civil
penalty not to exceed $100. For a third or subsequent
violation, the minor would have his or her driver's license
suspended for a period of 90 consecutive days. The 90 day
suspension is consistent with penalties for minor possession
of alcohol in the District of Columbia. Any minor found to be
in possession of tobacco may also be required to perform
community service or attend a tobacco cessation program. Each
of these penalties are at the judge's discretion.
I understand that the District of Columbia already has
tough laws on the books to address the issue of sales of
tobacco to minors. My amendment focused specifically on the
possession of tobacco products by minors in order to put
minor possession of tobacco with minor possession of alcohol.
All three cities in my district have passed anti-possession
laws, so I am not asking the District to do anything my own
communities have not already done.
I was an original cosponsor of the strongest anti-tobacco
bill in the 105th Congress, the Bipartisan NO Tobacco for
Kids Act (
H.R. 3868). The intentions of my amendment was to
encourage youth to take responsibility for their actions. If
individuals under the age of 18 know they will face a penalty
for possession of tobacco, they might be deterred from ever
starting to smoke in the first place.
As we move forward in the 106th Congress I would like to
know whether you plan to address this issue at the local
level. I think it is important that all levels of government
work together to help stop children from smoking. I also
believe we should send the right message to our children, and
the first step in this process would be for the District of
Columbia to join Virginia, Maryland, and the twenty other
states who have passed youth possession and consumption laws.
I would appreciate knowing of your intentions, and to work
with you and Members on both sides of the aisle in 1999 to
make sure this important piece of legislation becomes law.
Again, congratulations on your new position as Mayor and I
look forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Bilbray,
Member of Congress.
[[Page
H6607]]
____
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor, District of Columbia,
May 21, 1999.
Hon. Brian Bilbray,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Bilbray: Thank you for your letter sharing
your concern about teenage smoking in the District and your
congratulations on my November election to the Office of
Mayor.
In response to your inquiry, the District of Columbia is
addressing the issue of teen smoking through a variety of
methods. DC Public Schools has two programs--The Great
American Smoke-out and ``2 Smart 2 Smoke''--to raise
children's awareness of the dangers of smoking. Additionally,
the Department of Health supports the efforts of local and
community-based initiatives like ``Ad-Up, Word-Up and Speak-
Out,'' which encourages school age children to perform their
own research on the effects of advertising directed at
children.
Finally, the school system recently elevated possession of
tobacco to a ``level one'' infraction--which means violators
could incur the most severe disciplinary measures, including
possible suspension. To assess our progress, the District is
tracking youth smoking related data through grants provided
by the Center for Disease Control.
I want to assure you that I share your concerns about
teenage smokers. Sandra Allen, Chairperson of the City
Council's Committee on Human Services, and I are working
diligently to strengthen enforcement which should, in
combination with the other initiatives, result in a real
reduction of teenage smoking. We believe that the cumulative
effect of these initiatives will have a marked improvement on
the incidence of teen smoking.
Again thank you for bringing this issue to the forefront of
my attention. I agree that discouraging our youth from
engaging in this terrible habit of smoking is very important
in the fight to curtail tobacco's tragic and inevitable long-
term effects.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, July 8, 1999.
Hon. Anthony Williams,
Mayor, District of Columbia,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mayor Williams: I would like to thank you for your
response to my letter regarding my youth consumption
amendment and the tobacco strategies in the District of
Columbia. I appreciate the information you provided regarding
the programs the D.C. public schools are implementing to
combat youth smoking.
As I mentioned in my first letter, in the 105th Congress I
introduced an amendment to
H.R. 4380, FY 1999 District of
Columbia appropriations bill that sought to prohibit
individuals under the age of 18 years from possessing and
consuming tobacco products in the District of Columbia. This
amendment received strong bipartisan support and passed
through the House by a 238-138 vote on August 6, 1998.
I intend to reintroduce this amendment to the FY 2000 D.C.
Appropriations Bill later in the year when Congress takes up
this legislation. I believe at the same time we are educating
youths on the dangers of tobacco and curtailing
advertisements by the tobacco industry, we need to strive for
new and innovative ways to reduce tobacco use along with
sending a clear message to our youth that we will not
tolerate the consumption of tobacco. This is what a youth
consumption law in the District will accomplish.
My amendment contains a penalty section, which is modeled
after the state of Virginia's penalty section for minors
found in violation of tobacco possession. For the first
violation, the minor would, at the discretion of the judge,
be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $50. For the
second violation, the minor would be subject to a civil
penalty not to exceed $100. For a third or subsequent
violation, the minor would have his or her driver's license
suspended for a period of 90 consecutive days. The 90 day
suspension is consistent with penalties for minor possession
of alcohol in the District of Columbia. Any minor found to be
in possession of tobacco may also be required to perform
community service or attend a tobacco cessation program. Each
of these penalties are at the judge's discretion (I have
attached a draft of my amendment for your convenience).
My amendment focuses specifically on the possession of
tobacco products by minors in order to put minor possession
of tobacco with minor possession of alcohol. If we are really
serious about reducing youth consumption of tobacco we need
to put it on the same level as alcohol and treat it equally.
Again, thank you for responding to my original letter and I
look forward to working with you on this important issue.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional
questions.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Bilbray,
Member of Congress.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook).
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his
support in providing $250,000 in the bill to continue the mentoring
program for at-risk children and the resource hotline for low-income
individuals in the District.
Last year, Congress appropriated $250,000 to the International Youth
Service and Development and Corporation to provide these worthwhile and
much-needed services to the District. During the past year, I had the
privilege to visit the southeast White House in Anacostia, where some
of these services are provided to low-income citizens and at-risk
children. I am pleased to report to the Congress that this minor
allocation of $250,000 is making a real difference in the lives of many
families who were struggling to survive and protect their children who
are at risk in their community.
Is it the chairman's intention that this appropriation of $250,000 be
used by the city to continue the good work which is currently being
accomplished by the International Youth Service Development
Corporation?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
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. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
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.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 3, line 7, through page 25, line 12 is
as follows:
Federal Payment to the Citizen Complaint Review Board
For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia for
administrative expenses of the Citizen Complaint Review
Board, $1,200,000, to remain available until September 30,
2001.
Federal Payment to the Department of Human Services
For a Federal payment to the Department of Human Services
for a mentoring program and for hotline services, $250,000.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee
Operations
For salaries and expenses of the District of Columbia
Corrections Trustee, $183,000,000 for the administration and
operation of correctional facilities and for the
administrative operating costs of the Office of the
Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the
National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33, approved August
5, 1997; 111 Stat. 712): Provided, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, funds appropriated in this Act for
the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee shall be
apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget
and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal
agencies.
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts
For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia
Courts, $100,714,000 to be allocated as follows: for the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $7,209,000; for the
District of Columbia Superior Court, $75,245,000; for the
District of Columbia Court System, $9,260,000 and $9,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2001, for capital
improvements for District of Columbia courthouse facilities:
Provided, That of the amounts available for operations of the
District of Columbia Courts, not to exceed $2,500,000 shall
be for the design of an Integrated Justice Information System
and that such funds shall be used in accordance with a plan
and design developed by the courts and approved by the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate: Provided
[[Page
H6608]]
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, all
amounts under this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by
the Office of Management and Budget and obligated and
expended in the same manner as funds appropriated for
salaries and expenses of other Federal agencies, with payroll
and financial services to be provided on a contractual basis
with the General Services Administration, said services to
include the preparation of monthly financial reports, copies
of which shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President
and to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental
Affairs of the Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform
of the House of Representatives.
Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts
For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section
11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under
the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act), payments for
counsel appointed in proceedings in the Family Division of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under chapter
23 of title 16, D.C. Code, and payments for counsel
authorized under section 21-2060, D.C. Code (relating to
representation provided under the District of Columbia
Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of
Attorney Act of 1986), $33,336,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That such funds shall be administered by
the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the
District of Columbia: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, this appropriation shall be
apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget
and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for expenses of other Federal agencies.
Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
for the District of Columbia
For salaries and expenses of the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, as
authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997, as amended (Public Law
105-33, approved August 5, 1997; 111 Stat. 712),
$105,500,000, of which $69,400,000 shall be for necessary
expenses of Parole Revocation, Adult Probation and Offender
Supervision, to include expenses relating to supervision of
adults subject to protection orders or provision of services
for or related to such persons; $17,400,000 shall be
available to the Public Defender Service; and $18,700,000
shall be available to the Pretrial Services Agency: Provided,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts
under this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the
Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in
the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and
expenses of other Federal agencies: Provided further, That of
the amounts made available under this heading, $32,192,000
shall be used in support of universal drug screening and
testing for those individuals on pretrial, probation, or
parole supervision with continued testing, intermediate
sanctions, and other treatment for those identified in need,
of which not to exceed $13,245,000 shall be available until
September 30, 2001, for treatment services.
Children's National Medical Center
For a Federal contribution to the Children's National
Medical Center in the District of Columbia, $3,500,000 for
construction, renovation, and information technology
infrastructure costs associated with establishing community
pediatric health clinics for high risk children in medically
underserved areas of the District of Columbia.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS
OPERATING EXPENSES
Division of Expenses
The following amounts are appropriated for the District of
Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund
of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically
provided.
Governmental Direction and Support
Governmental direction and support, $162,356,000 (including
$137,134,000 from local funds, $11,670,000 from Federal
funds, and $13,552,000 from other funds): Provided, That not
to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of
the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the
City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation
for official purposes: Provided further, That any program
fees collected from the issuance of debt shall be available
for the payment of expenses of the debt management program of
the District of Columbia: Provided further, That no revenues
from Federal sources shall be used to support the operations
or activities of the Statehood Commission and Statehood
Compact Commission: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission
to Statehood from its own locally-generated revenues:
Provided further, That all employees permanently assigned to
work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid from funds
allocated to the Office of the Mayor.
Economic Development and Regulation
Economic development and regulation, $190,335,000
(including $52,911,000 from local funds, $84,751,000 from
Federal funds, and $52,673,000 from other funds), of which
$15,000,000 collected by the District of Columbia in the form
of BID tax revenue shall be paid to the respective BIDs
pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996
(D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the
Business Improvement Districts Temporary Amendment Act of
1997 (D.C. Law 12-23): Provided, That such funds are
available for acquiring services provided by the General
Services Administration: Provided further, That Business
Improvement Districts shall be exempt from taxes levied by
the District of Columbia.
Public Safety and Justice
Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease of
135 passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement only,
including 130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use,
without regard to the general purchase price limitation for
the current fiscal year, $785,670,000 (including $565,411,000
from local funds, $29,012,000 from Federal funds, and
$191,247,000 from other funds): Provided, That the
Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not
to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Department
of Fire and Emergency Medical Services of the District of
Columbia is authorized to replace not to exceed five
passenger-carrying vehicles annually whenever the cost of
repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds three-fourths of the
cost of the replacement: Provided further, That not to exceed
$500,000 shall be available from this appropriation for the
Chief of Police for the prevention and detection of crime:
Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police Department
shall provide quarterly reports to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate on efforts to increase
efficiency and improve the professionalism in the department:
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, or Mayor's Order 86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the
Metropolitan Police Department's delegated small purchase
authority shall be $500,000: Provided further, That the
District of Columbia government may not require the
Metropolitan Police Department to submit to any other
procurement review process, or to obtain the approval of or
be restricted in any manner by any official or employee of
the District of Columbia government, for purchases that do
not exceed $500,000: Provided further, That the Mayor shall
reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for
expenses incurred in connection with services that are
performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia
status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall
be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for
these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the
District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That
such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the
District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding
proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the
availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting
payment in advance for emergency services involved: Provided
further, That the Metropolitan Police Department is
authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn officers, with leave for a
50 officer attrition: Provided further, That no more than 15
members of the Metropolitan Police Department shall be
detailed or assigned to the Executive Protection Unit, until
the Chief of Police submits a recommendation to the Council
for its review: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be
available for inmates released on medical and geriatric
parole: Provided further, That commencing on December 31,
1999, the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate, and the Committee on Government Reform of the House
of Representatives, quarterly reports on the status of crime
reduction in each of the 83 police service areas
established throughout the District of Columbia.
Public Education System
Public education system, including the development of
national defense education programs, $867,411,000 (including
$721,847,000 from local funds, $120,951,000 from Federal
funds, and $24,613,000 from other funds), to be allocated as
follows: $713,197,000 (including $600,936,000 from local
funds, $106,213,000 from Federal funds, and $6,048,000 from
other funds), for the public schools of the District of
Columbia; $17,000,000 from local funds being the Federal
payment appropriated earlier in this Act for resident tuition
support at public and private institutions of higher learning
for eligible District residents; $10,700,000 from local funds
for the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; and
not less than $27,885,000 from local funds for public charter
schools: Provided, That if the entirety of this allocation
has not been provided as payments to any public charter
schools currently in operation through the per pupil funding
formula, the funds shall be available for new public charter
schools on a per pupil basis: Provided further, That $480,000
of this amount shall be available to the District of Columbia
Public Charter School Board for administrative costs;
$72,347,000 (including $40,491,000 from local funds,
$13,536,000 from Federal funds, and $18,320,000 from other
funds) for the University of the District of Columbia;
$24,171,000 (including $23,128,000 from local funds, $798,000
from Federal funds and $245,000 other funds) for the Public
Library; $2,111,000 (including $1,707,000 from local funds
and $404,000 from Federal funds) for the Commission on the
Arts and Humanities: Provided further, That the public
schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept
not to exceed 31
[[Page
H6609]]
motor vehicles for exclusive use in the driver education
program: Provided further, That not to exceed $2,500 for the
Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for the President of the
University of the District of Columbia, and $2,000 for the
Public Librarian shall be available from this appropriation
for official purposes: Provided further, That none of the
funds contained in this Act may be made available to pay the
salaries of any District of Columbia Public School teacher,
principal, administrator, official, or employee who knowingly
provides false enrollment or attendance information under
article II, section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide
for compulsory school attendance, for the taking of a school
census in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes'',
approved February 4, 1925 (D.C. Code, sec. 31-401 et seq.):
Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be
available to subsidize the education of any nonresident of
the District of Columbia at any District of Columbia public
elementary and secondary school during fiscal year 2000
unless the nonresident pays tuition to the District of
Columbia at a rate that covers 100 percent of the costs
incurred by the District of Columbia which are attributable
to the education of the nonresident (as established by the
Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools):
Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be
available to subsidize the education of nonresidents of the
District of Columbia at the University of the District of
Columbia, unless the Board of Trustees of the University of
the District of Columbia adopts, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2000, a tuition rate schedule that will
establish the tuition rate for nonresident students at a
level no lower than the nonresident tuition rate charged at
comparable public institutions of higher education in the
metropolitan area.
Human Support Services
Human support services, $1,526,361,000 (including
$635,373,000 from local funds, $875,814,000 from Federal
funds, and $15,174,000 from other funds): Provided, That
$25,150,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until
expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia
employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That a
peer review committee shall be established to review medical
payments and the type of service received by a disability
compensation claimant: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia shall not provide free government services such as
water, sewer, solid waste disposal or collection, utilities,
maintenance, repairs, or similar services to any legally
constituted private nonprofit organization, as defined in
section 411(5) of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance
Act (101 Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11371),
providing emergency shelter services in the District, if the
District wo
