[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11618-H11627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2546, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 252 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
  
[[Page H 11619]]


                              H. Res. 252

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2546) making appropriations for the government 
     of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
     in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     amendments specified in this resolution and shall not exceed 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Before consideration of 
     any other amendment, it shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order to consider the amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, if offered by a Member designated in the 
     report. That amendment shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of 
     further amendment. The bill, as amended, shall be considered 
     as read through page 58, line 4. All points of order against 
     provisions of the bill, as amended, for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. Debate on each 
     further amendment to the bill and any amendments thereto 
     shall be limited to thirty minutes. It shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order to consider each 
     of the amendments printed in the Congressional Record and 
     numbered 1, 2 or 4 pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXIII, if 
     offered by the Member who caused it to be printed or a 
     designee. Each such amendment shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. During consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 252 is a modified open rule 
which provides for consideration of the H.R. 2546, the District of 
Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996, and waives all points 
of order against this bill. House Resolution 252 allows for 1 hour of 
general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Following the hour of general debate, the bill shall be considered 
for amendment under the 5-minute rule. Before consideration of any 
other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendment offered 
by Representative Walsh, which is printed in the Rules Committee's 
report, will not be subject to amendment and shall be debatable for 10 
minutes equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent 
of the amendment.
  If the Walsh amendment is adopted, the bill as amended shall be 
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment, 
and shall be considered as read through page 58, line 4. The rule also 
waives clauses 2 and 6 of rule XXI. As a consequence of the District's 
precarious financial situation, the subcommittee has included a number 
of legislative provisions that will ensure that a few specified 
activities are achieved by the local government.
  The rule holds that debate and consideration of any amendments to the 
bill, and amendments thereto, shall be limited to 30 minutes. House 
Resolution 252 specifically makes in order amendments numbered 1, 2, 
and 4 which were printed in the Congressional Record of October 30, 
1995, waives points of order against these amendments, and provides 
that these amendments shall not be subject to amendment.
  Amendment No. 1, offered by Representative Bonilla, is designed to 
revoke the National Education Association's property tax exemption. It 
is now acknowledged that the NEA is a taxpayer subsidized labor union 
that has strayed from its original purpose to promote education. The 
NEA no longer deserves this tax exemption, and the Bonilla amendment 
will remove this Federal mandate and bring in over $1 million to the 
District of Columbia.
  Amendment No. 2, offered by Representative Gunderson, offers an 
opportunity to revive the District's school system by authorizing 
funding for school reforms and the creation of renewable 5-year public 
school charters. Mr. Gunderson has consulted with local officials on 
his reform package to help repair the ruined District school system, 
and the Rules Committee believes that this amendment deserved 
consideration by the whole House.
  Amendment No. 4, offered by Representative Hostettler, would repeal 
the District's Domestic Partners Act, which provides that unmarried, 
adult, non-dependent cohabitants may register to receive health 
benefits and other legal rights. This act is simply poor public policy. 
Congress has consistently prohibited the use of Federal funds for 
implementing this act, and this amendment will end the annual process 
of prohibiting the enforcement of this law.

  Members will have the opportunity to offer additional amendments 
under the 30 minute time arrangement for each amendment. The specified 
time limits will give all Members the opportunity to debate fully each 
amendment, while ensuring that this important bill moves along the 
appropriations process in a timely manner. The rule permits the 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in 
recognition to those Members who pre-printed their amendments in the 
Congressional Record, which will assist all the Members of the House in 
the consideration of the merits of each proposed amendment. Finally, 
the resolution provides for a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia, by all accounts, has gotten 
itself into a financial predicament that necessitates the serious 
action taken in H.R. 2546. The bill provides a total appropriation of 
$4.97 billion for fiscal year 1996, and takes the additional step of 
placing a cap of $4.87 billion on the total amount of appropriations 
available to the District Government for operating expenses. Certainly, 
a city the size of Washington, DC, can survive on almost $5 billion, 
especially after the local District leadership institutes the necessary 
reforms to create a more efficient operation for our Nation's capital 
and its citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I might parenthetically point out that the county in 
which I live has 20,000 more citizens than the District of Columbia and 
it provides all the same services and does so for $410 million per 
year, rather than $4.97 billion.
  In addition to the provisions that the DC subcommittee has included 
in the bill, I am pleased that the District Financial Management 
Assistance Authority has been specifically encouraged to expedite the 
implementation of sound financial practices as soon as possible. The 
Financial Authority, the local government and the inhabitants of the 
capital all recognize the feeling of apprehension that exists about the 
ability of the District to govern itself, and I hope that everyone can 
agree that this bill will effectively spur the District toward 
financial solvency.
  Under the leadership of Chairman Walsh, the appropriators have had to 
balance an assortment of concerns, including home rule, and make 
difficult choices with the limited funding available this year. The 
product of their 

[[Page H 11620]]

work reflects both these new budget realities and the District's fiscal 
emergency. As a result, H.R. 2546 guarantees that the available funding 
is spent efficiently and where it is needed most.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule was favorably reported by the Rules Committee 
yesterday. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
proceed with debate and consideration of the underlying legislation 
which will assist the District along the road to financial well-being.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Congressional Record:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                            [As of November 1, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 52                 69
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 18                 24
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  5                  7
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................                104                100                 75                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                            [As of November 1, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
                                                                                                28/95).         
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
                                                                                                11/95).         
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
                                                                                                31/95).         
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
                                                                        Budget.                                 


                                                                                                                

[[Page H 11621]]
                    SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                    
                                            [As of November 1, 1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition not only to this rule, 
but the D.C. Appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes me 
wonder what has happened to oft repeated Republican mantra of ``local 
knows best.'' After reviewing the contents of this bill and the 
amendments made in order in the rule, that mantra might rather be 
``father knows best.''
  The Republican majority has for the past 10 months explained away 
their dismantling of Federal programs by claiming that the American 
people elected them to Congress to return power to the States and local 
governments. Well, Mr. Speaker, if those claims are so true, can you 
explain why the District of Columbia Subcommittee has seen fit to send 
us a bill which micromanages the affairs of the rightfully and lawfully 
elected government of this city?
  Mr. Speaker, I am no particular fan of the manner in which the 
government of the District has been run in the past. It is bloated, 
inefficient, and taxes its residents far heavily. Its financial affairs 
are a disgrace, and that is evidenced by the street lights that are 
burned out and not replaced, the animal shelter nearly closed because 
the city did not pay its bills, and the ranks of the police force being 
decimated by the loss of senior experienced officers because of cuts in 
their basic rates of pay. The situation in which the Nation's Capital 
finds itself is very, very sad.
  But, Mr. Speaker, does this situation then grant license to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and his subcommittee to impose 
their own vision of the world as it should be? Does this situation 
grant the Congress the right to subvert the will of those American 
people who reside in the District? Because, as you well know, Mr. 
Speaker, those people have no voting voice in this Congress and this 
bill ensures that what little voice they have in governing their own 
affairs is nothing short of meaningless.
  Mr. Speaker, if the content of the reported bill is not bad enough, 
then the rule reported by the Republican majority of the Rules 
Committee only makes matters worse. I am particularly opposed to the 
rule because of an amendment which was made in order. That amendment, 
to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] will 
allow the use of Federal tax dollars to provide vouchers for students 
to attend private and religious schools. I have long opposed the use of 
tax-funded vouchers and I must strongly protest the inclusion of this 
amendment in the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, in April the Congress enacted legislation which 
established the financial control board for the District of Columbia. 
That board, along with the city council and the Mayor, is working to 
resolve the deep financial crisis that faces this city. I do not know, 
Mr. Speaker, how prohibiting any city-owned or city-run facility from 
performing abortions is going to help the board, the council, or the 
Mayor find a way to fund the $256 million shortfall in funds provided 
in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree the District of Columbia is in serious 
trouble and that much of this trouble is of the city's own doing. But 
that does not, Mr. Speaker, give this Congress the right to act in such 
a blatantly paternalistic manner. If the Republican majority finds such 
value in letting local governments conduct their own affairs, then I 
believe one of the first places they should demonstrate this commitment 
is in the city which houses our Nation's Capital. Let's let the 
financial control board do its job. Let's let the council make the laws 
which govern those American citizens who elected them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that the other 
side of this House is suddenly concerned about micromanaging 
Washington, DC. Maybe if they had dared to micromanage Washington, DC, 
for 1 or 2 of the years that they have been in the majority, 
Washington, DC, would not be a bankrupt city.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in a position where we have been working with the 
Financial Control Board, with city officials, with outside experts, all 
year long trying to turn the Nation's Capital around.
  It is a great city. They have some good folks involved in the 
government of Washington. We want them to run their own city. We want 
them to run the Nation's Capital. Yet, at the same time, we cannot 
continue year after year writing checks to Washington, DC, and turning 
the other way and act like the status quo is good enough.
  Mr. Speaker, the city is in the red. It has been in the red. The 
audit is just unbelievable, the amount of things that have been found 
in it. For the other side of this House to be saying that we are 
micromanaging it is absurd.
  Mr. Speaker, I have only been a Member of this body for 3 years, but 
I know that we have debated the abortion issue, the domestic 
partnership issue, year after year every time the DC bill comes up. 
That is not something new. That is something that, yes, there is a 
philosophical difference generally outlined by party differences on 
those particular issues. But actually bringing it to the floor of the 
House shows that we are not trying to ram it through in a backroom 
deal. We are not trying to micromanage.
  Mr. Speaker, these are things that we believe the American people 
should debate about. Remember this, the history of Washington, DC, is 
the Government moving to Washington. When George Washington was the 
President, the capital was in New York City and it was in Philadelphia. 
When they came here, it was a swamp. Washington surveyed this land, 
established the Nation's Capital and the city of Washington.
  The city of Washington, DC, grew up around Congress; not vice versa. 
The only city that was here was Georgetown. Washington, DC, actually 
went through a period of home rule and lost it in the year 1874, 
because of mismanagement. Congress took over then for 100 years and 
then in 1974, home rule was started again.
  We are at a situation now where we had all the evidence needed to 
pull home rule away, but we are choosing not to. The gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh] and the committee, in a bipartisan basis with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] has said no. Let us do not. Let 
us work with the Financial Control Board. Let us work with the city 
officials and give them the arm's-length support and leadership and 
partnership that they need to turn this great Nation's Capital around.
  Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we can do that and I urge Members to 
support the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon].
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the 
fiscal year 1996 District of Columbia appropriations bill. Mr. Speaker, 
the House begins consideration of the District of Columbia 
Appropriations bill 1 month after the fiscal year has begun and 13 days 
before the continuing resolution--which covers the District government 
as well as the Federal Government--expires. Since the time that the 
subcommittee first marked up this bill on September 19, this measure 
has been mired in controversy about the budget cuts included in the 
bill, as well as some 40 legislative provisions initially 

[[Page H 11622]]

recommended by Chairman Walsh for inclusion in the bill.
  After a second subcommittee markup on October 19, the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill was able to proceed to consideration by 
the full Appropriations Committee, in large measure, only because of an 
agreement reached among the principals to drop legislative and policy 
riders from the bill that deeply undermined the principle of home rule 
for the District of Columbia. Given the District's precarious financial 
condition, I thought that we had agreed to drop these controversial 
matters to expedite consideration of the bill, so that we could begin 
conference deliberations promptly and enact a final measure prior to 
the November 13 expiration of the continuing resolution.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in much the same situation in 
which we started with this bill. Apparently, the majority is determined 
to be the second city council for the District of Columbia. This rule 
grants point of order waivers for several legislative matters that 
should be determined by District voters through their elected 
representatives, not by this Congress.
  During consideration of the bill by the full Appropriations 
Committee, an amendment was added to amend the District of Columbia 
Code to prohibit the use of both Federal and District funds for 
abortions, and to prohibit even privately-funded abortions in District-
owned or operated facilities, except in the cases of life, rape or 
incest.
  Mr. Speaker, this section of the bill goes far beyond the existing 
Hyde restrictions. In fact, this language is the most restrictive 
language ever imposed on women in the District of Columbia who rely on 
public facilities to receive health care. This language simply does not 
belong in this bill. And, the President has signaled that he will veto 
the bill of this language remains in it.
  Second, the rule protects provisions which amend the District of 
Columbia Code to prohibit joint adoptions by individuals who are not 
married. Again, this is a policy matter that does not belong in an 
appropriations bill. It is a matter for local residents to decide, just 
as we allow residents of every other local and State government to 
determine their own adoption laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I must also oppose the rule because it violates what I 
believed was an agreement reached to keep this bill as clean as 
possible of additional legislative provisions. The pending rule would 
make in order a 142-page legislative amendment on educational reform in 
the District of Columbia. Now, we all know that the District public 
schools are not doing the job that should be done for students. And, I 
commend the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], for 
his sincerity and hard work in crafting this amendment. But, the 
reality is that this is a very controversial amendment. There is no 
consensus on it. There is, however, a great deal of concern about the 
bill's provisions as they relate to the establishment of charter 
schools and a voucher program in the District of Columbia. The 
Secretary of Education is opposed to the authorization of Federal 
funding to pay for private school vouchers. The American Civil 
Liberties is opposed to the voucher program in the amendment. As is the 
American Jewish Congress, Americans United for Separation of Church and 
State, the National Parent Teacher Association, and the National 
Association of State Boards of Education, American Federation of 
Teachers, American Association of School Administrators, National 
Education Association, Council of Great City Schools, and National 
Association of Elementary School Principals.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that this amendment simply does not 
belong in this bill, notwithstanding the fact that many elements of 
this bill have support among District of Columbia elected officials and 
residents. Adoption of the Gunderson amendment will only serve to 
further prolong the time it takes to enact the District's funding 
measure when it is critical to provide additional financial resources 
to a city on the brink of insolvency.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order an amendment designed 
solely to punish one organization because some members do not happen to 
like its ideology. The Bonilla amendment would strip a congressional-
granted District property tax exemption from the National Education 
Association. This is a punitive amendment that singles out just 1 of 27 
organizations that enjoy the same exemption. The amendment does not 
belong on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a bad rule. I cannot support it and I urge 
its defeat.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this is a first for many Members of this 
body. It is the first time the Republicans have carried an 
appropriation for the District of Columbia since home rule. It is the 
first time that freshmen have had to vote on a bill at all for the 
capital of the United States. I hope they are bewildered by the 
exercise, because they have come here, of course, for national, not 
local matters.
  I had hoped that this would be the year of bipartisanship, and I had 
every reason to believe it might. The District is in a financial crisis 
that is known around the world. And every Member of this body bears a 
responsibility, wherever the fault lies, to help raise the city again 
so that it can proudly claim to be the capital of this Nation.
  I had every reason to hope for bipartisanship in the tone set by 
Speaker Gingrich and in my work, especially with the chair of the 
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the gentleman from Virginia, 
Mr. Davis. I faced a personal crisis, when my city had all the signs of 
going down the drain. Somebody had to speak up. At some political risk 
to myself, I said to the residents of my city, there must be a 
financial authority. Do not fight it. You need it in order to borrow, 
and you need it because we must revive the finances and management of 
the D.C. government. And in a bipartisan way and with the help of the 
administration, we worked on the financial authority bill.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] worked fruitfully and 
productively with us as well. The bipartisanship continued when the 
District did not have funds so that it could put its share for Federal 
highway money. The majority helped get us the votes and that bill was 
passed, also with the help of the administration.
  Pitifully, the Speaker, the Speaker's office called PEPCO last week 
to say, do not turn off the lights in the District. Money is coming. We 
will see to it. Yet I am told, there is plenty of money down there 
somewhere, Eleanor. And the cops cannot get their cars out of the 
garage and yet the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] says, I do not 
know where it is but it has got to be there. And, of course, he imposes 
a huge cut on the District knowing full well that he himself cannot 
point to where the money is. That is folded into this bill.
  Thanks to the Speaker, we were able to negotiate most of the home 
rule and statutory items off the bill; and then of course we came to 
the Committee on Appropriations, and Members began to add such items to 
the bill. It is those items that make it impossible for this bill to 
come forward in the bipartisan way that other bills involving the 
District this year have come forward.
  Some amendments are more gratuitous than others. Mr. Walsh regularly 
puts in an abortion amendment, but for some reason, he ceded his 
amendment to a Member that would amend the DC code on abortion. That 
has never been done in 20 years of home rule, and one wonders why he 
would not have exercised the necessary leadership on this instead of 
driving votes away on a statutory amendment on abortion, coming from 
the Congress, when every single jurisdiction in the United States has a 
local option on this controversial issue.
  Where was his leadership then? Where was his leadership on 
Hostettler, when he comes forward knowing that there is already a 
domestic partnership amendment in the bill that keeps D.C. from 
spending its money and demagogically comes forward and says, let us 
enact it into legislation. Where is your leadership on that, Mr. Walsh?
  The tragedy here is the Gunderson matter which has been negotiated 
endlessly and wonderfully with the District. Yet a voucher is in that 
bill that will drive votes from my side, and I can tell you from your 
side, as well, off the bill. And then just to be truly partisan 

[[Page H 11623]]

about it, you go to the list of agencies that have been granted 
exemption from DC property taxes, none of which should have been 
granted, and you say, let us pick out our political favorite to get. 
Let us pick out the NEA.
  Pick them all out. Give us all 27, if you are serious, and you are 
not serious.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I will not yield, sir.


                             point of order

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the gentlewoman at the 
desk are very personal. I would like to inquire of the Chair what the 
rule is regarding personal arguments versus substantive arguments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members cannot indulge in personalities 
during the debate.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman to cite a personal 
remark. I have called the name of the leader of the subcommittee. I 
have made no personal remarks.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, continuing my point of order, Mr. 
Speaker, I do not intend to ask that the Chair take down the words of 
the gentlewoman at this point, but the Record is replete with personal 
comments. We can debate this bill and we can pass this bill if we talk 
about the substance of the bill and not personalities.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have made no invidious remarks. The one 
thing you have taken from me is my vote. Let me speak for my city.
  The real crime is that this bill undercuts the financial authority 
that this body set up. Against the advice of the financial authority, 
this bill says, you must impose severe cuts on the city. A tough 
financial authority stepped forward and said, we have imposed cuts on 
the city. Now they said, give us only time enough so that we can also 
impose management reforms on the city, then perhaps we will go back to 
cuts. And still cuts have been extracted from our own (DC) budget.
  This appropriation bill did not follow the bipartisan lead that was 
the lead of the Speaker and the authorizing committee this year. There 
were four pages of invasions into home rule. They were finally gotten 
off with the help of the leadership. Now there is a cut that will bury 
the city. Now the financial authority which the city has accepted has 
been ignored. Now the District is being treated like a Federal agency.
  My colleagues, I represent 600,000 breathing Americans who have been 
loyal to their country. In their name, I ask that they be treated with 
the respect each and every one of you have insisted for your 
constituents.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the 
Committee on Rules for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I think the rule 
recommended by the Committee on Rules gives us all an opportunity to 
offer amendments. The rule makes some amendments in order. Other 
amendments would be in order to strike language in the bill. In all 
cases an adequate amount of time is allowed by the rule for full 
debate. I think it is a fair rule, and I urge bipartisan support.
  Speaking of bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that 
last year when the other party, the former majority party, had control 
of this committee, I worked with them to pass this bill. The District 
of Columbia spends every penny of the Federal formula funds that it 
receives from this Congress on the very first day of its fiscal year. 
That is the kind of fiscal house they operate.
  The District of Columbia spends $5 billion every year on a city of 
570,000 people. That is unheard of anywhere else in this country. But 
I, along with others on our side, reached across the aisle to help the 
current minority party get this bill passed last year.
  I would ask nothing less of them this year than to help us to pass 
this bill. It is our responsibility to govern. It is our responsibility 
to pass this bill. It took Republican votes last year to pass this 
bill, and I would ask them to reach across the aisle this year.
  I would ask the Delegate, who has spoken so strongly in opposition to 
this bill, to recognize the fact that the District needs the money in 
this bill, that the District government needs the money to meet their 
commitments. There was no emphasis or effort on this side of the aisle 
to cut Federal funds from this bill. This is a hold-fast, steady-as-
you-go, financial commitment to the District of Columbia. While the 
rest of the country is being asked to take severe cuts all across the 
board, we are not cutting the Federal funds to the District of 
Columbia. If this rule were to fail, that might be the first order of 
business by this subcommittee.
  Home rule: Home rule is a delegation of responsibility from the 
Congress to the District of Columbia to organize and operate its own 
affairs. In the 20 years of home rule, we have seen one unbalanced 
budget after another to the point where the new administration last 
January announced that they were $700 million in the hole. When Mayor 
Kelly was elected 4 years ago, the Congress gave the District authority 
to borrow $336 million and gave them an additional $100 million within 
the first eight months of her administration--$400 million to cover the 
financial deficit that was occurring then.
  The consistent message to the Congress from the District of Columbia 
is ``respect home rule and send money; as much as you can send us, send 
us.''
  The District Government has done a terrible job running this city. 
Congress is always criticized for stepping in and involving itself, but 
I dare say the Congress would not step in, would not involve itself, if 
the city was being run in a responsible way.
  There is no accountability in this city. There is no fiscal 
discipline in this city. There is an inability to deliver basic 
services in this city. The potholes do not get fixed, the garbage does 
not get picked up, the water and sewer system does not work right. It 
is rife with overemployment. The list goes on and on. They have the 
worst schools in America.
  This subcommittee pursued the resolution of these problems 
aggressively. Then we took a step back and said, okay, we have the 
financial control board in place now. We will ask them to review these 
problems and make recommendations to Congress, back to the authorizing 
committee. So we basically took our hands off of the problem. I felt we 
should have been more aggressive, but that was not to be. But the fact 
is the control board now has the responsibility. We have delegated 
additional responsibility to them in our bill, and we have done our 
level best to avoid involving ourselves in the responsibilities of the 
District.

                              {time}  1445

  When the other party ran this committee, they interfered in home rule 
when it served their purposes. The underlying definition of ``home 
rule'' was, ``if it is not controversial, we can do it. If it is 
controversial, we cannot do it.'' That is not home rule. That is a 
rationalization process.
  Let me end by saying the delicate question: Where is the leadership 
here? Leadership requires individuals to take risks. The Delegate has 
taken no risks. They want the money, but they do not want to stand up 
for the bill. My colleagues cannot have it both ways; that is not 
leadership. They cannot say we have got to help the District, we have 
got to move the bill along, and then stand up and oppose the rule and 
oppose the bill. That is not leadership, not by my definition.
  So I would suggest as a challenge to all of us to work together to 
extend a hand across the aisle, as the Republicans did for the 
Democrats last year, and get together, and pass this bill. There is 
enough in this bill to make everybody angry, but it is what the 
District needs at a minimum, and I would urge all of us, Republicans 
and Democrats, to support the rule and support the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] 
for yielding this time to me, and I rise to respond to the chairman of 
the subcommittee because I think his comments here point to the crux of 
the situation. There is certainly a financial 

[[Page H 11624]]

crisis in the District of Columbia, and I believe the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Walsh] at the time believed that the approach to take was 
to establish the Financial Review Authority, and for my point of view 
that is working. But if anyone believes that the justification for the 
most rigid abortion language has anything to do with the financial 
crisis of the District, I will sell them the Brooklyn Bridge. If anyone 
believes that language dealing with adoption relates to the financial 
crisis, I will sell them a bridge in California. And if anyone believes 
the NEA or the domestic partners has anything to do with the financial 
crisis or moves the District forward as it relates to its finances, I 
will sell them this Capitol.
  Mr. Speaker, the point is that this bill is being used to justify the 
political persuasions of some Members of this House.
  Now it is clear that we have the jurisdiction to do so, but to stand 
up and say that we would not be interfering in the District's affairs 
if things were going well financially just ain't so because, these 
philosophies, notwithstanding problems of the District financially, are 
being driven to demonstrate a point to a constituent in anybody's 
particular State or district.
  Finally, yes, the Congress, when there has been a Federal interest, 
has exercised certain discipline over the District of Columbia, but 
when we move on the issues that I am concerned about, we are not 
dealing with the financial structure of this District. No one on this 
floor believes it. No one on this floor thinks that we are eliminating 
abortion in city facilities either funded or operated because of the 
finances of this District. So let us be straightforward, Mr. Speaker. 
There is philosophy driving this and not financial concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, I, in particular, support my colleagues' desire to get 
the finances of the District straight, but I do not, in particular, 
support the philosophy that is driving the amendments that we are going 
to be discussing to enter into this bill and the amendments that are 
already in this bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a couple of seconds to say 
that, if the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] does not believe 
giving the NEA, or any other organization, tax-free use of its 
property, expanding the health insurance plans, or any of the other 
costly social programs that they have tried to not add to fiscal woes, 
he probably does believe he has bridges in Brooklyn to sell.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me to respond?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. The problem with the NEA exemption is that the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] says that they have violated their charter 
that was established in 1906. The committee of jurisdiction is the 
Committee on the Judiciary. There are 26 other organizations that enjoy 
the same, yes antiquated, exemption. Either we should make a finding 
and hold a hearing, but not come to a committee one day, and because we 
do not like this particular organization, say we are going to take it, 
the exemption, away from it. Whether my colleague is for the NEA or 
against the NEA, this is fundamentally wrong.
  Mr. LINDER. Reclaiming my time, I would just respond to that by 
saying the only point to your reference that I was responding to was 
the notion that giving them $1.4 million a year worth of the tax-free 
benefit is not additional financial burden. It does indeed.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to calm things down just a 
little bit, if I can, and I would like to begin by paying my respects 
to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], 
who has more patience than Solomon, and to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] and to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton]. I got to tell the rest of my colleagues I have 
not been involved in the D.C. issue until this year. It is some of the 
hardest work in this Congress, and my colleagues all ought to 
understand that, and they ought to respect what these people go 
through, but I want to share with my colleagues in that mode three 
particular points that I think are important as we debate this rule and 
as we deal, in particular, with the so-called Gunderson amendment on 
reforming D.C.'s education.
  There was an agreed upon process at the very beginning that we would 
try to reach a consensus in the various initiatives of reform, whether 
it be the schools, or the housing, or the crime and safety, or the 
taxes, and, where those agreements could be reached, we would marry 
them with the appropriation bill. Now nobody objected to that last 
spring, and I just have to tell my colleagues not to complain about the 
process now when they did not complain about the process at the 
beginning. There was a common understanding of how this was going to 
work.
  Second, I think it is important to understand guidelines. It was the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] who told the 
Speaker that after some of my initial mistakes and some of my efforts 
to compensate for those mistakes by reaching out to the District that 
she believed we could reach a consensus on education and reform and 
that she asked the Speaker directly to do that, and so I have tried to 
bring everybody along in a consensus. This is not my preferred 
document. If I were going to have my name on education reform, there 
are a lot of things I would change in this because I would want to know 
I could guarantee the outcomes, but we tried to bring everybody along 
in a consensus package under the guidelines that every one of us had to 
like 80 percent of the package.
  Some of the people today who are opposing the package are the very 
ones who submitted to us in their reform document the very 
recommendations for independent charter schools included in our bill. 
Some of those who are opposing the scholarships today are the very 
people who sat in my office and said they understood, while they could 
not endorse this, this was a rational, reasonable compromise between 
the education reformers and the public education advocates and they 
would accept that, not endorse that, but they would accept that. They 
have changed. I cannot help that, that they have changed their word in 
that regard.

  Third, let us talk about the scholarships. The Department of 
Education, the AFT, the NEA said, ``Steve, we cannot in any way, shape, 
or form support a voucher, because a voucher takes money out of D.C. 
schools and puts it into private schools.''
  I said, ``That's fair, and we're not going to do that.'' So we are 
not doing vouchers in this bill, and anybody who tries to say we are 
doing vouchers in this bill is frankly lying and misleading 
intentionally to misrepresent what this bill does.
  This bill is a scholarship bill. It is a scholarship for D.C.'s 
children to improve their education. It is scholarships so students can 
go to the public schools in the District of Columbia. If a student in 
Anacostia wants transportation to go to Northwest, they can do so. If a 
young kid in Northeast wants to join the band, but does not have the 
money to buy a trombone, they can get a scholarship to do so. In the 
public schools of the District of Columbia, yes, there is a chance that 
a young student who wants to go to Gonzaga can apply for a scholarship, 
and if there is enough money there from public and private resources, 
not one dime coming from the District of Columbia, they can apply for 
that scholarship, and they may or may not get it.
  But do not confuse this with the vouchers, and in the name of D.C.'s 
children do not misrepresent what we are doing, and in the name of 
those children of the District of Columbia and their future can we calm 
the rhetoric? Can we find a consensus? And can we find a way to move 
forward to reform D.C. schools? Because if we do not do it this week, 
we lose that chance for a whole year.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] 
for yielding this time to me, and I want to use this opportunity to 
express my dismay at this bill. I think the Delegate from the District 
of Columbia [Ms. 

[[Page H 11625]]

Norton] spoke very eloquently when she spoke about the elimination of 
home rule for D.C. We talk a good game about giving the power back to 
the States and the cities, about taking it away from the Congress, and 
when it comes to Washington, DC, we want to, apparently, do just the 
opposite. I think that home rule is home rule, and, if we are going to 
allow it for others, D.C. should be no different.
  What disturbs me in this bill are several different parts. First of 
all, and it has been mentioned before, the whole abortion dispute to 
amend the D.C. Code not to allow the people of the District to decide 
what is right for them, not to allow them to spend their own money when 
it comes to abortion; this to me is wrong despite what people may feel, 
pro or con, on the issue of abortion. Singling out the NEA, as the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] points out, when there are 26 
other groups that have the same privileges, singling them out to me 
seems absolutely wrong. The whole issue of domestic partnership, again 
to make it statutory not to allow D.C. home rule, if they want to have 
and allow domestic partnerships, I do not think that should be this 
Congress' business to tell them no. I think they ought to have a right 
to do whatever they want in terms of domestic partnership, and I do not 
think we ought to impose our views on them.
  I also rise today to oppose the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Gunderson's amendment to a D.C. appropriations bill. This amendment in 
my opinion is the latest in the ongoing efforts of this Congress to 
destroy rather than improve the public school system in this country, 
and it is time, when D.C. public schools need our strongest support, we 
are instead, in my opinion, considering proposals that will weaken 
them. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for his efforts to be open 
and inclusive in developing school reform proposals, however the 
provisions in the amendment to provide funding for charter schools will 
only create chaos in the D.C. schools without promoting real reform. 
The charter schools that could be funded by the legislation will 
include private schools. These private schools would have a direct 
entitlement to public funds and would not include requirements that 
teachers be certified.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, Federal funding of the charter schools would deprive the 
District's public schools of needed funds and further divide students 
along class, religious, and ethnic lines, without doing anything to 
improve education or increase student achievement.
  The so-called low-income scholarship program in reality, despite what 
my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], says, is 
actually a voucher system and would have a similar adverse effect on 
the District's public schools. The program would allow Federal tax 
dollars to provide funding for students attending private and religious 
schools in and outside the District.
  This plan will divert attention and vital resources away from efforts 
to reform the District's schools. If additional resources can be found 
to support education in Washington, DC, they should be spent on helping 
the public system within the District, rather than funding schools 
outside of the District.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Gunderson 
amendment. We must reform D.C. schools, but the way to solve this 
problem is not to take funds and attention away from students that need 
help. The public schools need our support so our students can succeed. 
I also want to say if there are any amendments, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler], I understand, is doing one on domestic 
partnership, I think, that should be rejected. The domestic partnership 
allows two people who are living together as a family for more than 6 
months to enjoy certain rights.

  If the people in the District of Columbia want to have that, that 
should be their prerogative. We cannot have this dual standard, this 
double standard whereby we say we want to take power away from Congress 
and give it to the States and cities, but when it comes to Washington, 
DC, we want to hit them over the head and tell them that they cannot 
run their own show.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] accused me 
of misrepresenting the facts. I have a copy of his amendment in front 
of me. I would like to read from the amendment. The English language is 
very clear.

       There is hereby established in the Treasury a fund that 
     shall be known as the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund, 
     to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       The Secretary of the Treasury shall make available and 
     disburse to the corporation, at the beginning of each of 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2000, such funds as may have been 
     appropriated to the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund. . 
     . .

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the fund $5 million in 
fiscal year 1996, $7 million in fiscal year 1997, and $10 million for 
each of fiscal years 1998 through the year 2000. That is Federal funds 
going into those scholarships. That is vouchers.
  The gentleman accused me of misrepresenting the fact, saying that 
there were no Federal funds involved in those vouchers. It is in the 
language of his amendment on pages 110, 111, and 112.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I never said there were not Federal funds involved. 
There are obviously Federal funds involved. I said there is a huge 
difference between a voucher and a scholarship. I would invite the 
gentleman, frankly, to go look up the two words in Webster's 
dictionary.
  Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman 
said there were no Federal funds involved, and that I was 
misrepresenting the fact that Federal funds were involved for this 
purpose. His own amendment, in the pages that I just read, 111 and 112, 
make it very clear that Federal funds were authorized to be 
appropriated under this bill for vouchers.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Montana 
[Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, somewhat reluctantly 
but urgently, to oppose this rule on the basis that it will allow 
public money to go to religious institutions. It does that through this 
rule because the rule, through the use of a parliamentary gimmick, 
allows for authorization on an appropriation bill. The bill that will 
be before us contains what has consistently and historically been 
described as school vouchers.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] prefers to call them 
scholarships, but I think that is a distinction without much of a 
difference. Vouchers, or scholarships, as the gentleman from Wisconsin 
calls them, have been a great national issue for the past decade and 
more in this country. They have been widely considered and debated in 
cities all across America, including this city, the District of 
Columbia, which just a few years ago had this proposal before them. 
They were not called vouchers, they were not called scholarships. At 
that time it was called paroch aid.
  The voters of the District of Columbia, in a fairly broad turnout, 
voted 9 to 1 against vouchers, scholarships, paroch aid. Are we not 
going to tell them that the Congress of the United States knows better 
than they do, when they spoke by a vote of 9 to 1?
  Mr. Speaker, time and time again, Supreme Court after Supreme Court 
has found that taxpayer money being diverted to religious schools is 
unconstitutional because it violates, clearly, the first amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States. I urge my colleagues, therefore, 
to begin the process of opposing vouchers. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose vouchers, scholarships, and paroch aid by voting no on the rule, 
and then no on the Gunderson substitute.
  In my remaining time, however, I want to commend the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], who finds herself, 
unfortunately, in a fiscal and legislative box canyon not of her 
making. She is doing a good job in trying to solve this dilemma. I do 
not urge my colleagues to support the bill, but I do urge them in their 
commendation of the work of the 

[[Page H 11626]]

gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Linder] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FROST. The issues are very clear, Mr. Speaker. This is a question 
of local control, which the other side says they believe in, but they 
obviously only believe in it in every case except the District of 
Columbia. This is a question of are we going to appropriate Federal 
funds to be used for school vouchers in the District of Columbia; are 
we going to do other things that have been described by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dixon], the ranking member on this committee, that 
we have not done in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and if the rule should 
be successful, a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, it may not be very exciting to talk about the rule, but 
I think the rule is fair. We would be here all day with efforts to 
instruct Washington, DC on how to conduct their lives and their 
government if we did not have a reasonably closed rule, and we have 
that. Yet, we have the important decisions to be put before us.
  I think the Gunderson amendment is an important one, because it is an 
honest effort to try to change a school system that is an abject 
failure by any measure. It spends more money per pupil than any other 
school system in the Nation and does not graduate 50 percent of its 
people. To try and do that not with their money, not telling them how 
to spend their money, but money we give to them, seems to me to be 
reasonable.
  Someone said if the people of the District of Columbia want that, 
they ought to have it. That is true in theory, but in practice, they 
are spending 40 percent of their budget coming from other folks. I 
would not be here pleading and begging for more of your money plus 
freedom if it were my county. I would not think I would have deserved 
more of your money. I would be embarrassed to make some of these 
claims. However, this District of Columbia government spends over 10 
times what my county government spends with more people and more 
services, and yet runs up an annual deficit that exceeds my county's 
entire budget by two times. I would be embarrassed to say we deserve 
more.
  The fact of the matter is we could just read this morning on the 
front page of the Washington Post Metro section, where the city of the 
District of Columbia gave a $547,000 loan to an entrepreneur who had 
not paid back the previous loan, had $100,000 in liens against his 
businesses, had not paid back his school loan until this year, and the 
Mayor, in announcing the $547,000 loan, did not even know how much it 
was for. He thought it was $400,000.
  No, this is not a city that does know better. It is a city that has 
been spending other people's money for an awful lot of time, and wants, 
of course, absolute freedom in doing that. There is not another city in 
America that can look to someone else for 40 percent of its budget, and 
look to themselves for the freedom to spend it.
  I think this bill will pass today, because I think we have to pass 
some kind of appropriations for this city to keep it going. It will be 
close. I think it will pass without much help from the minority, but I 
think we must pass the rule to get the bill to the floor. There are too 
many bills unpaid, there are too many fire engines in garages, being 
held there because we have not been able to pay for the repair. There 
are too many hospitals waiting for reimbursements. We simply must help 
them pay their bills to keep the city moving. I suspect we will be 
doing this.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue with the gentleman 
from Georgia, but the gentleman says that 40 percent of the budget is 
someone else's money. The gentleman may be correct, I do not know for 
sure. Could he tell me where he gets this figure?
  Mr. LINDER. I suspect that the gentleman who is the chairman of the 
subcommittee could address that.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is correct. The 
District's total appropriated budget is about $5 billion, including a 
$712 million direct grant to the District by Congress.
  Mr. DIXON. Is the gentleman referring to the Federal payment----
  Mr. WALSH. Yes.
  Mr. DIXON. Of $660 million.
  Mr. WALSH. Plus $52 million for the pensions.
  Mr. DIXON. $712 million.
  Mr. WALSH. $712 million, and another perhaps $1 billion, $1.2 
billion, for formula funds, Medicaid funds, transportation funds, and 
so on.
  Mr. DIXON. All communities receive those.
  Mr. WALSH. The gentleman made the point that it makes up 40 percent 
of their budget. It does not in other communities around the United 
States.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, there is not another 
city in America that has 40 percent of its money coming from a Federal 
grant or direct aid.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 181, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 757]

                               YEAS--241

     Allard
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
     
[[Page H 11627]]


                               NAYS--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Armey
     Fields (LA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Harman
     Moakley
     Rose
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1532

  Ms. ESHOO, Mrs. ROUKEMA, Mr. STENHOLM, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. CRAMER and Mr. COX of California changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________