[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18047-18051]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              {time}  1515

    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2587, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 260

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2587) making appropriations for the government 
     of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable 
     in whole or in part against revenues of said District for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 4(c) of rule XIII or section 
     306 or section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill 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. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. The amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of 
     the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to amendment. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived. 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 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone 
     until a time during further consideration in the Committee of 
     the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and 
     (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic 
     voting on any postponed question that follows another 
     electronic vote without intervening business, provided that 
     the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, for the 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.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 260 is an open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 2587, the District of Columbia appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2000. The rule provides for 1 hour of general 
debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives clause 4(c) of rule XIII, requiring a 3-day layover 
of the committee report; section 306, prohibiting consideration of 
legislation within the Committee on the Budget's jurisdiction unless 
reported by the Committee on the Budget; and section 401, prohibiting 
consideration of legislation providing new entitlement authority which 
becomes effective during the current fiscal year, of the Congressional 
Budget Act against consideration of the bill. The rule also waives 
clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and 
legislation on an appropriations bill.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 260 specifically structures consideration of 
four amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr.  Tiahrt), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) and the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Barr). These amendments may be offered only by the 
Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report equally divided and controlled between the proponent and an 
opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. The rule also waives 
all points of order against the amendments printed in the Committee on 
Rules report.
  Additionally, this rule accords priority in recognition to Members 
who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. This 
encourages Members to take advantage of the option to facilitate 
consideration of amendments and to inform Members of the details of 
pending amendments.
  The rule also provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the 
Chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, 
provided that the vote immediately follow another recorded vote and 
that the voting time on the first in a series of votes is not less than 
15 minutes.
  House Resolution 260 also provides for one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions, as is the right of the minority Members of the 
House.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 260 is an open rule similar to those 
considered for other general appropriations bills. Any Member who 
wishes to offer an amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations 
bill will have the opportunity to do so.
  In addition, in order to better manage the debate, the Committee on 
Rules has structured the debate on four specific amendments:
  Amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) 
would prohibit the use of District and Federal funds on a needle 
exchange program for illegal drugs, or for any payment to any 
individual or entity who carries out any such program.
  Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) 
would prohibit the use of funds contained in this bill from being used 
to allow joint adoptions by persons who are unrelated by either blood 
or marriage.
  Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Bilbray)

[[Page 18048]]

would prohibit a minor's possession of tobacco products in the 
District.
  And, finally, amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Barr) would prohibit the use of funds from being used to legalize 
or reduce penalties for the possession, use, or distribution of any 
schedule 1 substance under the Controlled Substance Act.
  Under this open rule, the House will have the opportunity to exercise 
its responsibility to address these important social issues facing the 
District. Rather than avoiding controversial issues like needle 
exchanges, legalizing marijuana, and adoption by domestic partners, 
Members of this House will be accountable to their constituents and the 
people of the District. I am pleased that this open rule will bring 
these honest policy disputes out into the open so that the American 
people will know where their representatives stand on these issues that 
affect them right in their own towns and neighborhoods.
  I also want to discuss briefly the base bill this rule makes in 
order. H.R. 2587 appropriates a total of $453 million in Federal 
funding support for the District, which is $230 million below last 
year's level and $59 million above the President's request. 
Additionally, the bill sends $6.8 million in District funds back to the 
people of Washington, $4 million less than fiscal year 1999 but $40 
million more than requested by the President.
  Madam Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations has once again 
performed admirably, working within the responsible budget limits 
imposed by the Balanced Budget Act while managing the available 
resources to best serve the American people. I applaud the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
for their hard work to produce this solid legislation.
  While this bill supports a broad range of District programs, I would 
like to focus on the bill's important provisions to improve education 
for the students of Washington, D.C. Specifically the bill provides $17 
million for a new scholarship to help District students attend college. 
It also reduces a number of regulatory barriers to ensure that District 
students have the chance to explore the opportunity of charter schools. 
With this legislation, charter schools will have access to construction 
funds, the schools will have the same opportunity to expand as other 
public schools, and parents will be able to send all of their children 
to the same charter school. Good education policy must start at the 
local level, and this bill empowers local officials to make the tough 
decisions necessary to move beyond the serious problems that currently 
plague their schools.
  Additionally, this bill works with local governments to improve city 
management, encourages adoptions of children currently in foster care, 
and enacts the $59 million tax cut passed by the D.C. City Council.
  This is a responsible bill that makes the Federal Government a 
partner in D.C. government and helps our Nation's capital move closer 
to the success and independence that its residents deserve.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2587 was favorably reported out of the Committee 
on Appropriations as was this open rule by the Committee on Rules. I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule so we may proceed with the 
general debate and consideration of this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules has done it to the District of 
Columbia again. The Republican majority has deliberately stuck a finger 
in the eyes of the residents of the District of Columbia. Accordingly, 
I rise in opposition to this rule which specifically makes in order 
four Republican amendments which seek to micromanage the District, all 
to advance an agenda which may or may not be shared by the citizens of 
this city.
  The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia made an eloquent plea 
to the Committee on Rules yesterday asking that the committee not make 
in order amendments which affect social policy in the city she 
represents. The committee totally ignored her, Madam Speaker, and in 
fact the committee did exactly what she asked it not to do.
  Madam Speaker, I am not here to advocate one social policy over 
another. I am not here to advocate the use of marijuana for medicinal 
purposes, or needle exchange programs, or the sale of tobacco to 
teenagers, but I do think that the Mayor and the Council of this city 
ought to be given an opportunity to govern and make the kind of 
decisions that city councils, county governments and State legislatures 
in the rest of the country are allowed to make without interference and 
micromanagement by the U.S. House of Representatives.
  The Committee on Rules apparently does not think that Mayor Williams 
and the City Council should be given that kind of responsibility. 
Instead, they have made in order in this rule amendments which would 
prohibit the city from counting ballots cast in an election last year, 
which would prohibit the city from using its own money to allow 
adoptions by unmarried couples, and which would prohibit the city from 
contributing its own funds to a needle exchange program specifically 
designed to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in this city.
  Madam Speaker, the Mayor and all 13 members of the City Council have 
asked that these riders, among others, not be included in this 
appropriations bill. But the Committee on Rules seems to know what is 
best for this city. This paternalism is insulting and patronizing, 
Madam Speaker, and for that reason I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and of the 
underlying bill that the rule authorizes to be considered.
  I appreciate the Committee on Rules' cooperation in putting the 
package together for fair consideration of this appropriations measure. 
I appreciate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran) with whom I have worked, and, of course, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  This rule keeps in place what the subcommittee and the full Committee 
on Appropriations have sought to do; that is, to, to the maximum extent 
possible, respect and follow the budget that was put together by the 
Mayor and the City Council in the District of Columbia.
  There are certain things, of course, that we undertake pursuant to 
our constitutional obligation. Article 1, section 8, of the U.S. 
Constitution provides that this Congress has exclusive legislative 
authority regarding the District of Columbia. However, many years ago, 
we delegated as much as we could through home rule charter to the 
District, and I am pleased that the budget that was adopted by the City 
Council, by the Mayor and by the D.C. Control Board is followed in this 
appropriations measure.
  Let me mention, so that all Members will be fully aware, several 
things that are in the bill that I do not believe will prove 
controversial. They are not controversial, and I believe they should be 
the focus of the consideration of the rule and of the underlying bill.
  For example, we are all familiar with the problems of drug and crime 
that have plagued the District for far too many years. We have a very 
ambitious program created in this piece of legislation, a $25 million 
addition on top of other drug testing and treatment funds for the 
Federal Office of Offender Supervision that is in charge of supervising 
some 30,000 persons that are on probation or parole within the District 
of Columbia.
  One of the conditions upon being on probation or parole and not being 
incarcerated is that they remain drug-free. We all know they are not 
remaining drug-free. In fact, working with the Chief of Police, Mr. 
Ramsey, here in the District, he advises me, as other

[[Page 18049]]

people do, that this population of 30,000 offenders is the core of so 
much of the crime that continues to plague the District of Columbia, 
persons that are free on supervision, or supposed supervision, that 
commit hundreds of crimes apiece in many cases, all too often because 
of the link between crime and drugs.
  This bill establishes for those 30,000 offenders a program of 
consistent, universal drug testing, for some of them once a week, for 
some of them twice a week, coupled with a major expansion of the drug 
treatment programs, saying to those offenders, if you wish to remain 
free on the streets, you must remain free of drugs.

                              {time}  1530

  This will be the largest program of its kind of any city in the 
United States of America. We are dead serious about the war on drugs. 
This bill takes the largest step we have taken toward attacking that 
problem. I believe it deserves focus.
  We also have within this bill the ratification of the bold tax cut 
plan that was adopted by the city council and the mayor in the District 
of Columbia beginning with $59 million the first year and larger 
amounts thereafter of property tax and income tax relief trying to help 
revitalize the city that has lost over 200,000 people in recent years, 
trying to be part of turning it around with economic development 
initiatives.
  And we all know, of course, that even if they have a more vibrant 
economic city, it still has to be a safe city. So we ratified the 
council's action in this bill at the same time as we undertake the 
attack on drugs.
  We have $5 million for a special environmental clean up of the 
Anacostia River. I want to especially commend one of the members of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who took 
a special interest in that particular measure.
  We have a major problem within the District of Columbia, one of the 
many accumulated problems through many bad years for the District of 
long-term foster care, 3,500 kids that need a permanent, stable, loving 
home. We have $8.5 million for adoption initiatives to help solve this 
long-term problem and get these kids out of long-term foster care and 
adopted into stable, permanent, loving homes. That is a very important 
initiative.
  The mayor and the council have been very diligent in bringing in, for 
the second year, a balanced budget within the District of Columbia. 
Thanks to some changes in the Federal relationship, some expenses that 
the Federal Government has assumed, they have a balanced budget; and we 
respect the priorities they put in.
  We also create further tools for rightsizing the size of city 
government. With the Control Board, in recent years, taking the lead 
and the gentleman who is now mayor of the city, Anthony Williams, who 
was Chief Financial Officer of the Control Board leading that way the 
city has been working to rightsize city government. There is still a 
problem with too many city workers for the size of the community. We 
have $20 million to help them with the downsizing initiative through 
buyouts and early retirements for persons that should be retired from 
the city payroll but that we need to make sure that we do it without a 
disruptive mechanism.
  We have these and other important initiatives that I think justify 
the accent upon the positive. We have a new mayor, we have a new 
council that is working diligently on the problems of city government, 
and we have also made sure that we do not open up new difficulties in 
this particular bill.
  I commend the Committee on Rules because the amendments which they 
placed in order are amendments which have previously been important to 
this House of Representatives. For example, the needle exchange 
prohibition with public funds that we will be voting on later is the 
identical provision that was approved by the House, approved by the 
Senate, and signed into law by the President of the United States last 
year. The amendment we will vote on is to continue that policy, not to 
create a new one.
  The committee has placed in order an amendment that is different in 
some ways, however, when it comes to the issue of the medical marijuana 
initiative petition that was conducted in the District.
  We dealt with, last year, a prohibition on counting the ballots. The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) which we 
will offer later today that the Committee on Rules has placed in order 
is not quite the same. It is a prohibition on changing the law in D.C. 
to legalize marijuana, but it is not a prohibition against counting the 
ballots.
  The amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) relating 
to adoption needing to be by couples who are related by marriage or by 
blood is the same language that was adopted by this House last year. It 
is not something new that has been brought up.
  The language of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) regarding 
tobacco was also something that was attached by the House to this 
legislation last year.
  So the Committee on Rules has avoided opening new fronts with the 
amendments that are placed in order. I recognize that there are some 
issues of social policy where there may be disagreements between 
persons in the District, persons in this Congress, persons on one side 
of the aisle and persons on the other side of the aisle. But I think 
when the House works its will with those amendments, we will see that 
what remains is a bill that promotes fiscal responsibility, that keeps 
the budget balanced running a surplus with tax cuts to help with the 
economic revitalization of the District of Columbia, significant 
incentives regarding the problems of drugs and crime and their 
interrelationship in D.C. and other measures such as the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder) has pointed out to strengthen the educational 
system through the charter schools provisions being made permanent.
  They are 5 percent of the District's school enrollment right now. 
They are projected to be 10 percent this fall, and also the education 
initiative with the D.C. scholarships, as it is called, which is a 
tuition aid grant modeled after the tuition aid grants that are 
currently in place in virtually every State in the Union.
  These are things that the Committee on Rules has left intact, they 
have not fostered disagreement or argument over these issues, and I 
think it is important that, as we consider the rule, we have that 
perspective. Yes, we will have disagreements over certain items in the 
bill, but after we resolve those disagreements, I urge people to adopt 
the underlying bill, and I urge adoption of the rule that makes it 
possible.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), who have worked so hard and so well to bring the 
D.C. appropriation to the floor early this year. My thanks also to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) who met with the District's new mayor Tony Williams and me 
earlier this year and indicated that they would work for early 
consideration of the city's budget. They have kept that promise.
  I want to say a special word of sincere appreciation to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) in particular for his openness and 
communication with me and with city officials that enabled us to settle 
amicably the small differences that inevitably arise. His respect for 
the work of our new mayor and the D.C. City Council is manifested in 
the city's consensus budget which came with the approval of the 
District's Control Board and to which the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook) has now given his approval as well.
  This hard work is now threatened by amendments that legislate on the 
appropriation in ways that are strongly opposed by the new mayor and 
all the members of the revitalized city council. Congress has the right 
to make policy decisions for this Nation. You have

[[Page 18050]]

no right to dictate policy to a local jurisdiction. Yet four amendments 
have been made in order and protected, and they are taken straight out 
of the annals of authoritarianism.
  They would impose on the District a provision that is not only 
grotesquely anti-democratic, but also is moot, that prohibits local 
funds for a constitutional test of congressional voting rights, a 
prohibition on even local funds to contribute to a private lifesaving 
needle exchange program that has saved hundreds of residents from death 
and disease caused by the HIV/AIDS epidemic, a prohibition on unmarried 
couples jointly adopting a child despite 3,000 children awaiting 
adoption, an entire bill penalizing the possession of tobacco by minors 
that Mayor Williams has specifically asked be deferred in favor of his 
own approach, and an amendment that seeks to overturn a local 
initiative on medical marijuana when no such law has been enacted.
  The bill itself also contains two provisions highly objectionable to 
city residents and elected officials that I cannot possibly support, a 
prohibition on the use of even local funds for abortions for poor women 
and a bar on implementation of the city's domestic partners law.
  The district has just elected a new reform minded mayor and 
revitalized its city council. They have sent us a balanced budget with 
a surplus consisting only of their own money with prudent investments 
in neglected services and with a tax cut for residents and businesses. 
Their work should not be undermined by the imposition of the personal 
preferences of Members on a local jurisdiction when Members are not 
accountable to local voters. The cumulative effect of these appendages 
to what is essentially a local budget is so obnoxious that a veto 
specifically has been threatened. I can only plead with my colleagues 
to save my appropriation from needless contention and a veto by 
defeating each and every one of these autocratic, anti-home rule 
amendments. This rule defeats the good work of the subcommittee by 
drowning it with irrelevant legislation anathema to the people I 
represent.
  I therefore must ask my colleagues, must plead with my colleagues, to 
vote against this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my 
distinguished colleague, the chairperson of the appropriations 
subcommittee, for working very hard on this bill and coming up with a 
bill that from every budgetary standpoint, from every appropriations 
standpoint, is a good bill. It should be passed. We should be unanimous 
here in our support of the consensus budget that is reflected in this 
appropriations bill.
  In fact, we went beyond the consensus budget and put in things that 
the mayor and other leaders of the city wanted. We have got more money 
in here for drug treatment programs, for court programs that supervise 
probationers and parolees. We have got programs that clearly will 
substantially reduce the rate of crime in the city. We have got money 
to address child abuse and neglect, to assist foster care children in 
getting adopted. Lots of good things, and I wish I could stand up here 
right now and say let us vote for this rule because it is such a good 
bill.
  Unfortunately, I cannot. I have to urge the body to vote against the 
rule because it is not a good rule, it is not a fair rule, it is not an 
appropriate rule. It specifically enables debates on issues that are 
not appropriately within the appropriations committee's jurisdiction. 
The reason why this is not a good rule is it puts in things that lie 
well beyond the scope of the Committee on Appropriations, well beyond 
the scope of Federal governance.
  It makes in order four amendments, four amendments offered by 
Republican colleagues, makes in order no amendments offered by 
Democratic colleagues, particularly the one offered by the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) in alliance with the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), it makes that out of order, 
and makes in order four amendments, all of which are inappropriate and 
would be ruled out of order if this was an open rule.
  This should be an open rule. Because it is not, I have to urge all 
the Members of this body who believe in fairness and in the integrity 
of the appropriations process to vote no on the rule.
  The needle exchange amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Tiahrt) inserts new language, goes beyond the use of funds 
appropriated in the act and places conditions on private funds.

                              {time}  1545

  That is not appropriate for an appropriations bill.
  We rejected what he was trying to do in full committee; but yet, the 
Committee on Rules enables him to take out the language that we agreed 
to in a bipartisan vote, a strong bipartisan vote in full committee.
  The Largent amendment would impose a new duty upon District 
officials. It is an unfunded mandate, imposes a new requirement on 
District officials to conduct additional screening requirements on 
applicants for adoption that go considerably beyond the funding issues 
in this bill to determine who is and who is not eligible to adopt 
children in the District of Columbia. It is going to restrict a lot of 
fine people from being able to adopt children when we have more than 
3,000 kids in need of adoption.
  The Bilbray amendment writes criminal legislation in an 
appropriations bill. This should be with the Committee on the 
Judiciary. I am sympathetic with what the gentleman wants to do, but we 
do not write criminal penalties into appropriations bills. What are we 
doing that for? It is not the right thing to do. And one can make an 
argument that this is not even lawful, to be putting in criminal 
penalties for minors' possession of tobacco. As much as we might like 
to do it, it does not belong in an appropriations bill.
  Then the fourth amendment, this is the Barr amendment, this is brand 
new. We rejected the gentleman's attempt to prevent the District from 
counting its own ballots on its own referendum. It would have cost 
about $1.30 to press a button and announce the results of the 
referendum. The committee, in a bipartisan aye vote, agreed that we 
should not be doing that. So we rejected it. So now the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Barr) has a brand-new thing, brand-new language that needs 
a hearing, needs consideration by the Committee on the Judiciary that 
places new penalties on the possession of a long list of substances: 
peyote, mescaline, marijuana, a whole long list of things.
  We have not thought about this, because we have not had any hearings; 
we do not have any knowledge about what we should be doing on this.
  This is clearly authorizing legislation. It has nothing to do with 
the appropriations bill; and yet, the Committee on Rules makes it in 
order. The Committee on Rules should not have made that in order. So 
four amendments do not belong in this bill. If they get attached to 
this bill, we are going to vote against this bill, and the President is 
going to veto the bill. They should not be in here. We should be giving 
credit where credit is due to the Committee on Appropriations for 
appropriating properly. If we were considering just an appropriations 
bill, we would have unanimous support for it, but we cannot go writing 
these kinds of laws on an appropriations bill.
  So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. We have a different 
situation this year from past years. Washington, D.C. is no longer a 
sharecropper's settlement on a congressional plantation. We should be 
treating them like every other city in our own Congressional districts 
and that is why we should vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as required to 
explain that the only notice that the Committee on Rules got was that 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) had an 
amendment to

[[Page 18051]]

introduce was not submitted to the Committee on Rules; she mentioned it 
in her testimony. It is a striking amendment, and it is in order.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for letting us 
know that the amendment has been stricken and made in order, that the 
Norton-Kilpatrick amendment will be able to be debated.
  I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Madam Speaker, there are 
500,000 people who choose to call Washington, D.C. their home. This 
rule is undemocratic, and it is unfair.
  My colleagues may not know it, but the residents of D.C. pay both 
local and Federal taxes. Last year, some $4.2 billion worth of Federal 
taxes were paid, more than some States pay. My colleagues may not know 
it, but D.C.'s population is larger than three other States in our 
Union who are represented by two Senators, as well as Congress people 
in this House of Representatives.
  The rule that was let yesterday from the Committee on Rules does not 
allow the District to operate as any other American jurisdiction would 
be allowed to do so: with its own local tax base. I think it is 
unconscionable, it is undemocratic, and it is unfair.
  Madam Speaker, D.C. residents are taxpaying American citizens and are 
denied full representation here in the Congress. Some of the amendments 
that are allowed in order ought not be in an appropriations bill, they 
should go through the regular process. It is a bad rule, it is unfair, 
it is undemocratic, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and have an open and honest debate on the important issues that the 
Nation is watching us for.
  Madam 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 (Mrs. Emerson). 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________