D.C. BUDGET CAUGHT IN HILL STANDOFF

Top Republicans Say Drug Issues Block Approval

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."