We know D.C. Get our free newsletter to stay in the know.

At 3 p.m. today, the House rules committee will take up the District of Columbia appropriations bill, and will decide which amendments will later be taken up on the House floor.

Amendments proposed so far include a number of social-policy riders that have been removed in subcommittee and committee actions. They also include attempts to prevent gay marriage in the District.

Here’s a rundown:

  • More than 25 members, including GOP leadership members Eric Cantor and Tom Price have proposed Amendment 87, which would “ensure that low-income DC students are able to receive a scholarship through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program by removing the requirement that students must be OSP recipients during the 2009-2010 school year.”
  • Reps. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), and Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) have proposed Amendment 50, which would “reinstate the prohibition on all public funding of abortions within the District of Colombia [sic].”
  • Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) proposes Amendment 37, which would “ensure that none of the local or Federal funds appropriated to the District of Columbia by this Act can be expended for any abortion except in instances where the life of the mother would be endangered or where the pregnancy was the result of incest or rape” and Amendment 38, which would “ensure that none of the funds appropriated by this Act to the District of Columbia could be used to operate a system for registering privately-owned firearms.”
  • Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have proposed Amendment 16, which would “provide that any law enacted by the D.C. Council that recognizes any definition of marriage other than a union between one man and one woman shall be invalid unless approved by the electors of the District of Columbia in the first general election that follows the enactment of that law. This provision would apply to any law enacted by the Council at any time before, on, or after the enactment of this Act.”
  • Chaffetz and Jordan have also proposed the stricter Amendment 19, which would “prohibit D.C. funds from being used by the District of Columbia to implement or enforce any recognition of a marriage between two individuals other than a marriage between one man and one woman.”
  • Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proposed Amendment 65, which would “prohibit any funds appropriated by the act from being used to violate the Second Amendment rights of the residents of the District of Columbia.”
  • Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) proposes Amendment 64, which would “require the District of Columbia to comply with section 104 of the Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services Establishment Act of 2004 (Sec. 2—1515.04, D.C. Official Code) and section 1102 of the Omnibus Juvenile Justice Act of 2004 (Sec. 24—941, D.C. Official Code) in operation of the New Beginnings Youth Facility located in the State of Maryland..”
  • Rep. David Souder (R-Ind.) proposes Amendment 18, which would “Would prohibit District of Columbia funds from being used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to legalize or reduce penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. section 801 et seq.) or any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative. It also would prohibit funds in the Act from being used to carry out the Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Act of 1998 (Initiative 59) approved by D.C. electors on November 3, 1988.” In other words, Souder’s the new Bob Barr.