Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) who is a physician, a family practitioner, throughout her career.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind my friend from California that there are 19 such needle exchange programs in California, but also, most importantly, this is a needle exchange program. There are no extra needles as the gentleman referred to. You do not get a clean needle unless you give up a dirty needle. That is what this is all about, trying to get rid of these dirty needles. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Baltimore, MD (Mr. Cummings) that has a particularly effective needle exchange program.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I trust that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is aware that Georgia has a needle exchange program and we do not tell Georgia that they cannot have a needle exchange program, nor do we tell any of the other 113 cities around the country except for the District of Columbia that they cannot have such a needle exchange program. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 40 seconds to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, it is not just we who are opposed to this amendment who are saying that the needle exchange program does not increase the level of drug addiction, nor increase the amount of AIDS. We are listening to the experts. The American Medical Association says this program is effective. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control. Every single professional organization tells us this program works. We do not feel particularly comfortable with this program because we do not want to encourage drug addiction, but when we are dealing with one city that has the worst level of drug addiction and AIDS in the country, they should be able to make their own decision on what works. There are 113 cities that have been able to make that decision, major cities. They are using this program. All we are saying in this amendment is do not use Federal funds. It passed in a bipartisan vote in the committee. We urge this body to support the Committee on Appropriations. Vote down this amendment.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that, first of all, I neglected particularly to thank Mr. Americo ``Migo'' Miconi who was just superb on this bill. When I was thanking everybody, it was not sufficient to thank the members of the Committee on Appropriations staff without mentioning him particularly, specifically. He has some excellent people working with him as well, and we appreciate their fine work. Again, not only did we not mention the $17 million for the in-State tuition program, terrific idea, the $8.5 million for adoptions, the money for charter school, the money for offender supervision, I could go on and on and on, great things, plus supporting the consensus budget. That is why we particularly hope that these two amendments can be defeated and we can support the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) to conclude.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and would simply say that we are happy that it is in the bill.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin as I did in the Appropriations Committee by thanking Chairman Istook for the way he has chaired the D.C. Subcommittee and prepared today's legislation. He has made a sincere effort to familiarize himself with the affairs of the District of Columbia by walking the city's streets, meeting with Mayor Williams and the City Council on several occasions, and touring the District's schools, its low income housing, the courts and the administrative offices. I know he shares my observation that many of the challenges and issues confronting the District are identical to those confronting most older urban communities. At the same time, there are a number of circumstances that make the District unique: it's a creation by Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution and the seat of the federal government, it has a large amount of federal property within its boundaries, and its local laws and budget may be subject to congressional review and approval. The fact that we are considering the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal Year 2000 reflects the District's unique status. In reviewing this legislation, let me begin by highlighting some of its positive aspects: it fully funds the consensus budget both the spending priorities and the tax cuts; it provides the federal funding level requested by the administration; in fact, it brings additional federal money to the District's aid, providing $8.5 million for adoption incentives for foster children; $20 million for severance pay for the Mayor's management initiative; more than $13 million for expanded drug treatment programs; $17 million to fund the in-state tuition benefits initiative and close to $20 million to help the Office of Offender Supervision tackle the very serious crime problems caused by repeat offenders; and it helps address a number of city concerns from the operation of the District's courts to the hospitals. On the whole, this legislation is an improvement over the bill that came before us last year. With all that said, I must still object to a number of provisions that are in this legislation. These provisions, known collectively as ``riders,'' prohibit or tie the hands of District officials and its citizens to carry out and implement their own prerogatives. Perhaps when there was a large direct federal payment to the District's general funds, some could justify prohibiting the District's needle exchange program, its domestic partners' law, or even the counting of ballots on its medical marijuana initiative. The last direct payment in the fiscal 1999 appropriations act, combined with federal grant assistance, comprised more than 43 percent of the District's budget. Federal funds could co-mingle with local funds making it difficult to distinguish what was funded locally or with federal taxpayer dollars. The 1997 Revitalization Act changed all that and eliminated the concern that federal funds could co-mingle with local initiatives deemed inappropriate by a majority in Congress. For all intents and purposes, the 1997 Act discontinued the direct federal payment to the District's general fund.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Jim, the table on page 22 of the committee report states that $26,950,000 in federal funds go to the District's general funds. While true from an accounting perspective, all $26,950,000 is restricted on how it can be spent: $17 million for in-state tuition, $8.5 million for incentives for adoption, $1.2 million for the Citizens Complaint Review Board, and $250,000 for Human Services. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any funds Congress may now appropriate to the general fund are for a specific spending purpose and can only be spent for that purpose. In return for the elimination of the direct federal payment, the federal government assumed direct financial responsibility for obligations and responsibilities traditionally assumed by state governments. Instead, the District will receive direct federal grants identical to those received by most local jurisdictions or federal payments to defray the cost of responsibilities assumed by most states and now assumed by the federal government in the case of the District. In this light, adding language prohibiting the District from implementing local initiatives, where no federal funds are involved, is a blatant abuse of congressional power. Using this bill to prohibit the District from using its resources to fund a needle exchange program, a program proven effective at reducing the spread of AIDS, is no different than Congress passing a law prohibiting needle exchange programs specifically in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, but permitting other locally funded needle exchange programs elsewhere to continue. Prohibiting the District of Columbia from expending its use of local funds to provide abortion services for its low-income residents, when other jurisdictions are free to use local funds for similar programs is just plain wrong. Banning the use of local funds to prohibit the District from seeking redress in federal court on its voting rights claim, is like telling the City of Boerne it could not challenge the ``Religious Freedom Restoration Act'' that it successfully argued before the Supreme Court. Barring the District from implementing its local domestic partnership law is like Congress passing a law to overturn Wichita, Kansas and Jasper, Alabama's health benefit plan for their public employees, teachers and police officers. And, preventing the District's election officials from counting the ballot on a local referendum is just plain anti-democratic. You may object to the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, but to deny the election result from being tallied is like telling the citizens of Farmington, Missouri or Manchester, New Hampshire they cannot approve their referendums to finance building new schools. Have we become so arrogant in power and fearful of local initiatives that we have to block election results? I know some will argue that these riders are merely an extension of current law--they are. But, the context and circumstances with which Congress might have justified past intervention is now gone with the elimination of the direct federal payment. Federal taxpayer funds are no longer involved. We should, therefore, no longer concern ourselves with the actions of one local jurisdiction unless what we choose to do with it is applied equally to all jurisdictions. If a majority in Congress can accept the Labor-HHS restriction on abortion as a compromise, then this Congress should accept similar language restricting just the use of federal funds on these social riders. I was pleased to see that a majority of the full committee shared this perspective and approved two amendments that will permit the District to use non-federal funds to count the ballots on its referendum on the medicinal use of marijuana and revive its needle exchange program. I should also note that the White House opposes these social riders as well. The White House: strongly opposes the prohibition on the use of both federal and local funds to provide abortion services; objects to a provision prohibiting the use of federal or local funds to implement or enforce the District's Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic Partners Act); strongly objects to the limit on attorneys' fees in special education cases; and strongly opposes and may veto any bill that includes a prohibition on the use of local funds for needle exchange programs. I encourage the House to respect the District's right to pursue its own prerogatives with its own funds regardless of how members might feel about the merits of the specific local initiative. We should refrain from imposing any additional restrictions on the District's use of its own funds and support possible floor amendments that seek to remove those restrictions that still remain. Now, Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is absolutely right, and I just want to reiterate her comments. The amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) was intended to do the right thing for the children of the District of Columbia. Tobacco usage is wrong, it is harmful, and we want to work with him to reduce the amount of tobacco smoking on the part of youth, particularly given the fact that almost 3,000 children start smoking, teenagers, every day, and about a thousand of them are going to die as a result. So we had no objection to the good intentions on the part of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray). The only problem is the appropriateness of that kind of legislation that normally is considered by the Committee on the Judiciary and in other manners other than the Committee on Appropriations. But, again, we thank him for his amendment. We particularly thank him for withdrawing it at this time, and we certainly want to work with him in other constructive approaches to reduce the amount of tobacco usage in the District.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we also want the $8.5 million for adoption funds used most effectively. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate by 10 minutes on each side. I believe that the proponent of the amendment will find that agreeable.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire of the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) who is probably the only genuine expert we have on this issue. She was the State Secretary of Child Welfare for the State of New Mexico and knows this issue in her mind and in her heart.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, because this amendment respects the laws of other countries and it respects the women of other countries. Now that we have passed the Smith amendment, we have three choices before us: We can either outlaw sex, which is probably not going to be particularly successful, it certainly has not in the countries that we are talking about; or we can turn our back on illegal abortions and we can accept the women of Third World countries being consigned to the poverty, the desperation, the suffering, the exploitation that overpopulation entails; or we can do what the Greenwood amendment does, which is to say there is an alternative to abortion, and, that is, responsible family planning. That is what our country has done. That is why we are successful. That is why we are a first world country, because we have been able to control overpopulation because we have been able to empower women to control their lives. Vote for the Greenwood amendment. It is the responsible thing to do. It is the only responsible thing to do.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a good appropriations bill. The appropriations part of this bill is a terrific bill, and for that reason, I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. He has had an open mind; he has had a very solicitous attitude towards everyone who had ideas on this bill. He has taken the initiative to walk many of the city streets, to visit its schools, to encourage other members of the subcommittee to do the same. I think he has done a fine job on the appropriations part of this appropriations bill, and I thank him for that. That is why the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia passed out by voice vote this bill, and in the full committee, after eliminating a couple riders, which I will talk about in a moment, we passed the bill out of the full committee on appropriations as well. So everything should be fine. In fact, I have no intention, Mr. Chairman, of taking up much time tonight, because we are not going to be voting on this bill tonight. We are going to be voting on Thursday, and on Thursday we are going to have to vote on a number of amendments that do not belong on this bill. If they are not added to this bill, then we are going to pass it virtually unanimously. But if they are added to this bill, then this is going to be a futile and very frustrating process, because not only will the Democrats in the House vote against the bill, but the President is going to veto it. So the principal message we want to leave with those Members who are listening tonight is that if they will stick to the appropriations that belong in this appropriations bill, then we are going to have unanimity, and all of our hard work, particularly under the leadership of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) will have been constructive. If we do not, it will have been for naught. The gentleman is absolutely correct in the priorities that he referred to. We agreed with the consensus budget. It was the city council's budget, the Mayor's budget, the control board's budget and our budget, and it was actually consistent with what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the chairperson of the District's Authorizing Committee, wanted to see done. We went even beyond that, Mr. Chairman: $8.5 million for adoption incentives for children, a great idea; $20 million for the Mayor to be able to reform much of the bureaucracy in the District of Columbia, necessary, excellent addition. But another $13 million for expanded drug treatment programs, $17 million for the in-State tuition program for D.C. students; about $20 million for the offender supervision. Unbelievable that drug addicts can commit 300 to 500 crimes just to feed their drug habit. If we can get them off drugs, off drug addiction, then we can make an enormous dent in the crime rate in this city. So so far, we agree with everything that was added. However, when we get to the back of the bill, the sort of fine print, we realize there is 160, I think about 163 general provisions. We do not object to all of them, but some of them clearly do not belong in this appropriations bill. One can make an argument, I would have disagreed, but one could make a decent argument that until the D.C. revitalization act, too many Federal funds were being commingled with District funds. The Congress was appropriating 43 percent of the District's budget. The District was dependent upon the Congress, so the Congress had some justification for putting all kinds of these social riders imposing its wishes in a whole number of areas that had nothing to do with the appropriations bill on District residents. But the D.C. Revitalization Act was passed in 1997. Those functions that were State functions were taken over by the Federal Government. Those functions that exist in all of our cities and towns across the country that are funded by Federal grants are now funded by Federal grants in the District of Columbia, just the way we treat our own cities. It was the right thing to do. But because that was done, we are no longer commingling money. We are treating D.C. like any other city, and so we should certainly treat D.C. in the way that we would want our own congressional districts treated, and we would never, ever allow this body to add the kind of social riders that have been added on this bill that will be imposed on the District of Columbia's leaders without their wishes, without their acquiescence, and, in fact, despite their very strenuous opposition. Four such amendments were made in order by the Committee on Rules. They should not have made them in order. One is the needle exchange program. The bill says no Federal funds can be used for needle exchanges. The bill is right. That is as far as our jurisdiction goes. Leave it there. Do not allow this amendment that goes beyond Federal money and says, we cannot even be using private money or local property taxpayers' money to go into however they want to be spending it. Mr. Chairman, the fact is we have an epidemic of AIDS in this city, and if the District feels that this is the best way to bring drug addicts into the system so they can treat them and so they can prevent HIV infection, which is the leading cause of death for adults between the ages of 25 and 44 in this city, then we ought to trust the District's judgment. In terms of the other amendment that is being suggested that we ought not be able to adopt unless one is a traditionally married couple or blood relatives, there are a whole lot of other living arrangements that consist of very fine people who want to do something about the more than 3,000 kids in need of adoption in this city. We have no business passing these kinds of laws. In terms of the amendment of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), who at one point prevented the District from being able to sum up the total of the referendum results on the medicinal use of marijuana, now he has changed this and put in clearly authorizing language that would say that one cannot use certain substances in the District without attaching penalties to it. That goes way beyond the jurisdiction of this committee, even beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Lastly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) has an amendment we would be sympathetic with that says it is a criminal penalty for minors to possess tobacco, but we would not do it in our own jurisdictions against the will of our constituents, and it is something that should have been done by the Committee on the Judiciary. It is authorizing language. It has no business on this appropriations bill. Those are the issues we are going to be debating, arguing over on Thursday. There are others in addition to that that I will not go into at this time. What they are going to do is to leave a sour taste over this bill when it ought to be recognized as a very fine bill. If we had stuck to the appropriations in this bill, we could have worked together, we could have gotten at least one of our appropriation bills signed by the President, and that money could have been used for constructive purposes. So we will draw swords on Thursday and we agree to disagree tonight. But Mr. Chairman, it is a darn shame, and it goes back to the rule. The rule made in order at least four amendments that never should have been made in order. Mr. Chairman, I subsequently have two speakers who are going to speak for a short period of time, and hopefully, for the sake of the other Members we are going to wrap up general debate as soon as we can. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are not in conflict over the facts. I think we agree on the facts. What we are debating is the conclusions as to how to best address those facts. We agree that forced sterilizations and forced abortions occur, and they are wrong. We are not disputing that. We agree that communism does not work, that it is a bankrupt ideology, that it offends the human condition, that it represses the human spirit, that it is just plain wrong. But I would hope we would also agree on other facts that cannot be disputed. One such fact is that there is no other major Nation that does not extend normal trading relations with China. That is all we are talking about, continuing the normal trading relations that we extend to every other trading partner, but for a very few pariahs. We would also hope that we would agree that there are about 200,000 American jobs involved here. We would also hope that we would agree that if we cut off normal trading relations with China and isolate them, that there is an adverse impact upon our economy, and that there will be other countries coming in to fill the gap, countries who, in many cases, have far less commitment to human rights and economic progress, and individual liberties than the United States does. We must all share a confidence in our universal commitments to human rights. Surely, no one on the other side is suggesting that we who will vote to extend NTR to China are so heartless that we don't care about the numerous violations of human rights that occur on a daily basis. I think these things are clear. So when we weigh all the facts, we who agree that human rights are being violated every day, have come to the conclusion that the best way to change China's attitude is to improve their standard of living. If we improve their standard of living, they will want to have individual freedoms. They will insist upon it. They will insist upon a free enterprise economy. Eventually, they will become a democratic state. That is what we want. We agree on the facts. We want to get to the same place. We are just as committed. Support normal trade relations with China. Reject this resolution before us today. Give the Chinese people their best chance to break the chains of communist ideology. I rise to oppose this resolution and support renewal of normal trade relations with China. This is not a disagreement over facts but rather over judgement on how best to address those facts. I share the concerns expressed by some of my colleagues regarding human rights abuses by the People's Republic of China. I am deeply troubled by the religious persecution that is occurring in China, including the recent crack-down on Falun Gong practitioners. Christians, Catholics and anyone who puts their God above their State is considered to be a threat to China's leaders today. However, I disagree with the premise that discontinuing normal trade relations will somehow positively improve human rights in China. Promoting normal trade and continued economic engagement, over time, will help open up Chinese society. History has proven this inevitability. The very activities that trade and engagement bring to China help foster a climate under which religious teachings can spread and flourish. Canceling or conditioning NTR further isolating China would only damage our interests and undermine support among our allies to keep pressure on the Chinese government to institute more fundamental political and economic reforms and human rights protections. I would like to remind my colleagues that trade is not a partisan issue. NTR status for China has been supported by every President, Republican and Democrat alike, who has confronted this issue. By continuing normal trading relations with China, we extend ordinary tariff treatment that we grant to all but a few nations. We are not providing China special treatment and we are not endorsing China's policies. We are simply supporting the best way to promote U.S. interests. But, we should continue normal trade relations with China for more than just economic reasons. It is in our national interest. By resuming NTR with China, we advance our long-term national interests in achieving democratic and market reforms in the world's most populous nation. Our national interest are best served by a secure, stable and open China. The way we engage the Chinese government will help determine whether China assimilates into a community of nations and follows the rule of law or becomes more isolated and unpredictable. Continuing normal trading relations with China also serves our best economic interests. Approximately 200,000 U.S. jobs are tied directly to U.S. exports to China. In the absence of this relationship, we would be placing our firms that are making great strides gaining new market share in China at a severe disadvantage. We would be standing alone on a trade policy that neither our allies nor our trade competitors would follow. Our competitors would reap the benefits of business opportunities that would otherwise go to U.S. firms. The United States is the only major country that does not extend ``permanent'' normal trade relations to China. Revoking NTR status with China would only increase prices which U.S. consumers pay for goods and services and ultimately cost U.S. jobs. If the Chinese do not buy our products, they will buy them from Europe and other Asian countries. We would also be passing the cost of higher tariffs on Chinese exports, more than $500 million annually, on to U.S. consumers. Clearly, it's the American consumer who loses if we do not continue NTR with China. Higher tariffs on Chinese exports would only shift our demand for inexpensive, mass-market consumer goods to other developing countries and would not result in a net gain in U.S. manufacturing jobs. China is the fifth largest trading partner of the U.S. Two-way trade between the U.S. and China has increased almost tenfold between 1990 and 1997, increasing from roughly $10 billion to $75 billion. This growth is expected to continue to rise in the 21st century as more Chinese benefit from an improved standard of living and increased purchasing power. Our current trade imbalance with China can best be narrowed through increased trade and liberalization of the Chinese economy. As their income rises, demand for high-quality U.S. products increases and our trade deficits decline. In short, we have much to lose and little to gain by failing to continue our current trading relationship with China. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in our national interest and support normal trade relations with China.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

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. 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.