>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <019d01bf0b7e$425429a0$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: The bitter end >Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 12:59:09 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Washington Post >D.C. Budget Caught in Hill Standoff >Top Republicans Say Drug Issues Block Approval >By Stephen C. Fehr >Washington Post Staff Writer >Thursday, September 30, 1999; Page B01 > >Republican congressional leaders vowed yesterday to hold up final approval >of the District's budget for fiscal 2000 unless Democrats and D.C. officials >agree to prohibit the legalization of marijuana for medical uses. > >A day after President Clinton vetoed the city's $4.7 billion budget because >it included GOP "riders" to outlaw medical marijuana and a needle-exchange >program aimed at slowing the spread of HIV and AIDS among drug addicts, >House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Trent >Lott (R-Miss.) accused the president of supporting a "left-wing social >agenda." > >It was a clear sign that this year's debate over the D.C. budget--initially >coated in warm feelings as Congress embraced a new, reform-minded mayor and >a D.C. Council that was pushing a big tax cut--now has degenerated into an >ideological standoff between Capitol Hill Republicans and the White House. > >Caught in the middle is the D.C. government, which likely will begin the >fiscal year tomorrow without having its budget approved by Congress, as is >required. The city has been granted temporary funding relief from Congress >while the haggling over the budget continues, but D.C. officials say some >programs could be affected if the budget debate isn't settled within a few >weeks. > >Yesterday, Republicans not only sought to make a political statement about >D.C. proposals that they said would encourage drug use, but they also >rejected complaints from officials in the heavily Democratic city that >Congress should not trample home rule, the city's right to make its own >decisions. > >Hastert and Lott said they would not allow a medical marijuana law in the >District, even though 69 percent of D.C. voters approved such a proposal in >a 1998 referendum. Six states have similar laws, but unlike the District, >they do not have to run their decisions by Congress. > >"I'm sorry. It's not a local issue," Hastert said. "It's a life-and-death >issue for a lot of our children." > >That theme was continued at a House hearing yesterday, during which >Republicans invited law enforcement officials to testify that increasing the >availability of marijuana would encourage more use of the leaf. > >Democrats, meanwhile, tried to turn the debate away from drugs and toward >the idea that congressional Republicans, so conscious of states' rights on >other matters, should allow the District's government and residents to >decide what's best for the city. > >D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), in a telephone conversation yesterday >morning, told Lott that he believed that home rule--not drug policy--was the >issue. Other D.C. officials noted that Clinton opposes medical marijuana but >vetoed the D.C. budget because congressional Republicans simply had overrun >the city's wishes. > >"Mischaracterizing as drug-induced the veto of a president, who has >appointed the toughest drug czar in history and himself has long opposed >medical marijuana, is not credible," said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton >(D-D.C.). "The people I represent resent the conversion of their >self-governing rights into a drug issue." > >For all the posturing, informal talks began yesterday between the White >House and lawmakers in both parties to try to reach a compromise on a >spending plan for the city. Congress has approved a resolution keeping money >flowing to the city at this year's levels starting tomorrow. The final, >permanent city budget could be part of a separate bill or thrown in as part >of a catch-all appropriations plan next month. > >Some Republicans are cautioning Clinton and D.C. officials that some of >their pet programs--such as expanding college tuition benefits for D.C. >students--could be cut if the GOP-controlled Congress takes a second look at >the District's budget. > >Calling the veto "a terrible mistake," Lott asked, "What happens when the >District of Columbia is a loser because of this?" > >But Norton and administration officials dismissed that as an empty threat. > >"I'm absolutely unmoved by the scare tactic," Norton said. "The District >can't lose money unless the president gives it up." > >Clinton will not propose any cuts, said Linda Ricci, spokeswoman for the >White House budget office. If Republicans are worried about the fate of the >D.C. budget in an omnibus appropriations bill, Ricci said, Congress could >always send the president a separate D.C. budget bill with the anti-drug >riders stripped out. > >"The way to make sure the funding levels stay the same is to send a >free-standing bill," Ricci said. > >But Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), chairman of the Appropriations >subcommittee on the District, said the GOP is not willing to compromise on >the marijuana issue. If Clinton backs down, she said, lawmakers might be >willing to consider a separate D.C. budget bill. > >"We will not retreat on the drug issue," Hutchison said. > >Hutchison's House counterpart, Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), said >he's in no rush to move on the D.C. budget, adding that he wants the >president and the Democrats to "sit in the mess they created." > >"I don't think anyone feels a sense of urgency," he said. > >Ricci responded: "Procrastination and delay are not encouraging signs. We >think D.C. deserves better." > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: