[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              FEDERAL PAYMENT FORMULA REVISION ACT OF 1993

  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 2902) to amend the 
District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization 
Act to revise and make permanent the use of a formula based on adjusted 
District General Fund revenues as the basis for determining the amount 
of the annual Federal payment to the District of Columbia, and for 
other purposes, and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, under my 
reservation I yield to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Stark], for an explanation of the bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding. I would like to thank the committee ranking member, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for his efforts on behalf of this 
legislation, and I thank the delegate from the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, the purpose of H.R. 2902 is to reauthorize the Federal 
payment to the District of Columbia for fiscal year 1996. Last week, 
the House District Committee adopted a bipartisan substitute which 
maintains the 1996 Federal payment authorization at the 1995 
appropriation level; namely, $600 million. This is an interim approach, 
and I will continue to advocate use of a formula in future years.
  The bill as reported, Mr. Speaker, also includes a framework for 
performance and accountability standards, which the District must begin 
to implement almost immediately.
  Micromanagement of the District of Columbia is not the role of the 
Congress. Nevertheless, we must receive accurate details about the 
city's financial and management practices in order to carry out our 
responsibilities.
  It is important that the Congress complete action on this bill now so 
that the city and OMB can better plan for fiscal year 1996. I urge its 
adoption.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I am 
pleased to support the bipartisan compromise we have crafted together 
as the committee substitute to H.R. 2902. It has been a pleasure 
working with Chairman Stark and the gentlewoman from the District, Ms. 
Norton.
  With only a few hours left in the 103d Congress, this is no time to 
abandon the road we have taken together this year. It would have been 
easy to put off reauthorization of the Federal payment until next year, 
but that would not have been fair to the people of the District of 
Columbia. We cannot realistically expect the District government to 
prepare its budget without this authorization. We cannot ask someone 
else to do our job for us next year.
  This compromise merits the support of all Members on both sides of 
the aisle. It contains important changes to the Home Rule Act which 
will assist the District in its planning, setting priorities, and 
budgeting. It will greatly assist us in discharging our constitutional 
duties by helping us measure the local government's performance. We 
have delegated authority to the local government. But we cannot 
abdicate our responsibilities. These changes will benefit the District 
and Congress alike.
  The Federal payment to the government of the District of Columbia is 
an important connection between Americans and their capital city. Since 
the city's first home rule charter was signed during Jefferson's 
Presidency, the historical record consistently shows that the Federal 
interest in building, safeguarding, maintaining, and improving the 
Nation's Capital could never be dependent solely upon the financial 
welfare of the local economy. An 1835 Senate report concluded that:

       In the investigation of the subject committed to them, and 
     of the relief to be proposed, the committee have [sic] been 
     unable to separate the interests of the District from the 
     interests of the United States. They regard it as the child 
     of the Union, as the creation of the Union for its own 
     purposes.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       If this had not been the design, a temporary or permanent 
     seat of Government would have been selected in some populous 
     city, or some territory, subject to State jurisdiction; and 
     if this was the design it is not easy to comprehend either 
     the principle which would prevent the Government from a 
     liberal appropriation of the national resources to accomplish 
     the object, or the policy which could confine the city to the 
     means possessed by the inhabitants for its improvement.\2\

  Thus, it has always been apparent that the cost of building and 
maintaining the Nation's Capital could never be shouldered by only 
those who reside here. This cost includes the burden of having the 
Federal Government as the largest landowner in the District. The 
Federal payment itself can be traced back at least to the 1840's when 
annual appropriations were made by Congress to the local government. A 
June 1, 1874, committee report from the House Committee on the 
Judiciary, ``Legal Relations of the District of Columbia and the United 
States'' (the Poland Report), affirmed that the obligations of the 
Federal Government to the city are rooted firmly by the founders:

       The Federal city was to be a temple erected to liberty, 
     toward which the wishes and expectations of all true friends 
     of every country would necessarily be directed; and, 
     considered under such important points of view as evidently 
     controlled the minds of the founders, it could not be 
     calculated on a small scale. Everything about it was to 
     correspond with the magnitude of the object for which it was 
     intended. It foresaw a far distant future when it was to be 
     the center of a continent under one form of government 
     looking to it for its laws and for its protection. It was to 
     be a city where all improvements made and expenses incurred 
     were to be for the benefit of the whole people (emphasis 
     added).\3\
       As to the mutual obligations of the Federal Government and 
     the citizens to defray these expenses, the committee find 
     little difficulty. It is clear, if this national capital was 
     founded for the use of the United States, and was placed 
     under its exclusive government and control, and upon a scale 
     of magnificence appropriate only for a national capital, it 
     could never have been contemplated that the burden of 
     expenditures should fall upon those citizens of the United 
     States who might temporarily or permanently take up residence 
     at the capital.\4\
       Nor, indeed, would it have been just to impose this burden 
     upon them; for, upon the theory upon which the capital was 
     founded, all these expenditures would ultimately be for the 
     benefit of the whole people, and justice would dictate that 
     the burden should fall upon the whole people.\5\

  Despite the rhetoric however, ever since George Washington himself 
appealed to the Maryland Legislature for an emergency loan to continue 
building, cash shortages and mismanagement have plagued the local 
government. In many respects, the problems of the District government 
so well documented this year are a familiar repeat of history.
  In 1991, it was clear that the local government had again reached a 
crisis point. Revenues had been overestimated by at least $176 million 
the local government faced a deficit of more than $300 million.
  In response, Republicans and Democrats forged a series of bipartisan 
agreements to rescue the Nation's Capital from the brink of fiscal 
collapse. A $100 million emergency supplemental appropriation was 
passed. Whereas the Federal payment to the District had been flat for 4 
straight years at $430.5 million from 1987 to 1991, we increased the 
payment by $200 million for fiscal year 1992. Despite great 
uncertainty, the mayor, the council, and Congress agreed on a 
controversial $331 million bond obligation which would straighten out 
the District's cash flow roller coaster and even allow for a rainy day 
fund. Perhaps most importantly, we passed an authorization bill which 
for the first time established a formula for the Federal payment--
Public Law 102-102.
  Together, we enacted a program which would provide a cash infusion of 
more than $1 billion to the District between 1991 and today. Between 
1990 and 1994, Federal assistance to the District has increased by 
nearly 30 percent compared to a 9-percent increase in general fund 
local revenues. In 1990, the Federal Government provided for 49 cents 
for every dollar raised in local revenues. The Federal Government now 
provides 58 cents for every dollar. The Federal Government will provide 
more than $1.5 billion to the District this year.
  In spite of these efforts, however, the financial condition of the 
District in January 1995 will closely resemble the situation we 
witnessed in January 1991. To adequately prepare its new budget, the 
District must know what the Federal payment will be. But, the District 
must also know that we have asked enough of the American taxpayers. 
Accordingly, H.R. 2902, as amended, freezes the fiscal year 1996 
Federal payment at this year's level. I believe that a majority of 
Members want to be assured that the District government is changing for 
the better in how it conducts its affairs before higher levels of 
Federal resources are committed. A freeze is a fair deal for the 
District and the national taxpayers.
  In terms of managing these resources, our work is far from over, The 
Federal financial assistance to the city was never designed to be a 
one-way street. There has always been, and should continue to be, a 
linkage between the payment and performance. Appropriate Federal 
oversight has always been a part of the equation. The Home Rule Act 
does not sever the District from its obligations as the Federal city.
  We recognize that the problems facing the District extend at least to 
the end of the century. We cannot merely wish for better management, we 
must demand accountability. We have a fiduciary responsibility to the 
American taxpayers to ensure that these and future funds are spent 
wisely. This legislation contains a number of important permanent 
changes to the Home Rule Act. It requires the District government to 
design and implement a series of performance reviews. These programs 
will help the government evaluate both strengths and weaknesses in 
government service and personnel performance. Over time, these 
evaluations and scorecards can be used to improve service delivery and 
to right size its labor force. Both the programs and their annual 
reviews will be reviewed by the General Accounting Office and presented 
to Congress.
  This legislation protects the requirements of this year's 
appropriation bill that the District government send to Congress a 
series of financial reports. No longer will Congress be blindsided by 
inadequate information about the District's true financial condition. 
But H.R. 2902 goes even further by requiring the District prospectively 
to report what it intends to do to ensure that its 5-year financial 
program stays in balance. The District will also have to evaluate its 
performance over the past year and explain any deviation from its 
previously announced plans. Together with quarterly cash flow 
statements required to be sent to Congress, these reports will allow 
Congress not only to examine each year's plan in advance but to track 
performance over time to ensure that the District government sticks to 
a steady course toward financial responsibility.

  The quarterly reports will also include appropriate information about 
the personnel levels in the District government. Many Members have 
raised concerns about the size of the District government. With this 
legislation, we will have the information we need to separate fact from 
fiction.
  Some Members have expressed concern about the timing of this 
reauthorization. Let me assure my colleagues that this is wholly 
consistent with the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill and builds 
upon the action we took on a bipartisan basis. If we do not pass H.R. 
2902 before the end of the 103d Congress, we will have taken a giant 
step backward.
  Without this bill, the District government will not properly be able 
to prepare its budget for our review next year. Our demands of fiscal 
responsibility would be hollow. We will not have established the 
important plans we need to evaluate the District's performance. Waiting 
until next year will only lead to confusion and possibly misguided 
action by the next city administration. Little, if any, additional 
useful information will be available before the middle of next year on 
which to base a more informed decision than we have at present. We will 
have missed the opportunity to shape the relationship between the 
American people and their capital city.
  Nearly 200 years ago when much of Washington, DC was nothing but a 
swamp, Thomas Johnson, one of the first Federal city commissioners 
appointed by President George Washington wrote to Washington, ``the 
success of the City has now become important to your reputation.'' How 
Congress deals with the fiscal distress of the Nation's Capital today 
and over the next few years is important to all of our individual and 
collective reputations. There is nothing good to be gained by declining 
this opportunity to act and allowing the District to slide back into 
the fiscal swamp.
  I am pleased that this legislation is offered on a bipartisan basis 
and has the support of the membership on both sides of the committee. I 
thank my Republican colleagues for their cooperation and support. Let 
me also thank Mr. McDade, the ranking Republican on the Appropriations 
Committee, and Mr. Walsh, the ranking Republican on the D.C. 
Appropriations Subcommittee, for their assistance. Many of their ideas 
have been incorporated into this legislation.
  This legislation appropriately balances the interests of the District 
of Columbia with the Federal interest. I strongly support H.R. 2902 as 
amended.


                               footnotes

     \1\House of Representatives. Committee on the Judiciary. 
     Legal Relations of the District of Columbia and the United 
     States. 43rd Congress. Report No. 627. Reprinted in House of 
     Representatives. Committee on the District of Columbia. 96th 
     Congress. August 14, 1979. Serial No. S-1. (U.S. Government 
     Printing Office, Washington: 1979) p. 201.
     \2\Ibid. p. 202.
     \3\Ibid. p. 198.
     \4\Ibid. p. 199.
     \5\Ibid. p. 199.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member and 
Chairman Stark for working to get this early authorization through so 
that the District can begin on its budget, which virtually is beginning 
now.
  I want to thank Chairman Pete Stark and ranking member Tom Bliley, 
for their hard work in fashioning an early reauthorization for the 1996 
Federal payment in light of the District's severe financial crisis. The 
District will begin work on its fiscal year 1996 budget in November 
after Congress has adjourned. Since Congress will not return until 
January, the District would be left to take substantial steps in 
drawing its budget with no guidance on what figure the officials have 
to work with as to the amount of the Federal payment.
  Even if the District were in normal financial condition, it would 
always be important for District officials to know the amount of the 
Federal payment at the time they are preparing the budget. That is why 
we enacted a formula for the Federal payment in 1991. Despite the best 
efforts of Congress and the District, however, actual practice 
demonstrated that the formula was flawed. With no experience in 
developing a formula, unforeseen and arcane factors related to the 
District's budget process have arisen.
  It will take additional time and effort to fashion a trouble-free 
formula for the Federal payment. It is important to design a workable 
formula that will not produce new uncertainties or create more problems 
than it solves. In the past, for example, the District and the Congress 
have arrived at good faith differences in their calculations of the 
formula amount.
  Yet the predictability afforded by a formula is more necessary now 
then ever before. The District must engage in serious and accurate 
multiyear planning if the city's finances are to be stabilized and the 
new congressional requirements that have been imposed this year are to 
be met. Guessing at the Federal payment would make stabilizing the 
District's finances virtually impossible.

  Pending a new formula, there must be no room for error or 
miscalculation, considering the present crisis surrounding the 
District's finances. The District is undergoing an extremely difficult 
congressionally mandated budget cutting process unprecedented in the 
city's existence under home rule. The required $140 million in savings 
will be difficult enough to achieve, and to meet other expenses and the 
terms of the appropriations bill, it now seems clear that considerably 
more savings than Congress has specifically required will be necessary.
  H.R. 2902 authorizes a flat $660 million figure for fiscal year 1996, 
the same amount that the District received in fiscal year 1995. Thus 
the District is assured of at least as much money as it received from 
the Federal Government last year without the possibility that this 
amount might be precipitously lowered and worsen the city's financial 
condition. At the same time the amount is frozen and therefore there 
will be no additional burden on the Federal budget.
  In order to achieve what H.R. 4649, the District of Columbia 
appropriations bill requires, the District will need all the help it 
can get, including additional funds from the Congress. For the time 
being, however, the House has required cuts necessary to forestall the 
possibility of insolvency. It appears that achieving the mandated 
savings has become a threshold for the additional Federal money the 
District will surely require. I very much appreciate this early 
authorization, which will facilitate the budgeting and planning 
necessary to allow the District to get through the difficult year 
ahead.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 2902

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Payment for Formula 
     Revision Act of 1993''.

     SEC. 2. PERMANENT USE AND REVISION OF FORMULA TO DETERMINE 
                   AMOUNT OF ANNUAL FEDERAL PAYMENT TO DISTRICT OF 
                   COLUMBIA.

       (a) In General.--Section 503 of the District of Columbia 
     Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (sec. 47-
     3406.1, D.C. Code) is amended to read as follows:


                       ``federal payment formula

       ``Sec. 503. (a) Subject to subsection (b), there is 
     authorized to be appropriated as the annual Federal payment 
     to the District of Columbia for a fiscal year (beginning with 
     fiscal year 1995) an amount equal to the applicable 
     percentage of the adjusted District General Fund revenues for 
     the second fiscal year preceding such fiscal year, as such 
     revenues are reported in the independent audit of the 
     financial operations of the government of the District of 
     Columbia conducted under section 4(a) of Public Law 94-399 
     and as reviewed by the Comptroller General under section 
     715(e) of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the amount authorized 
     to be appropriated under such subsection for a fiscal year 
     may not be less than an amount equal to the average of the 
     annual Federal payments made to the District of Columbia 
     pursuant to this title during the 3 fiscal years immediately 
     preceding such fiscal year.
       ``(c) In this section, the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       ``(1) The term `applicable percentage' means--
       ``(A) with respect to fiscal year 1995, 25 percent; and
       ``(B) with respect to each succeeding fiscal year, the 
     lesser of--
       ``(i) the applicable percentage determined under this 
     paragraph for the preceding fiscal year increased by 1.0, or
       ``(ii) 30 percent.
       ``(2) The term `adjusted District General Fund revenues' 
     means all revenues of the General Fund of the government of 
     the District of Columbia, adjusted to include operating 
     transfers from the Lottery and Games Fund to such General 
     Fund (but no other payments or transfers to such fund from 
     any other intragovernmental source), and not including--
       ``(A) revenues that are required to be accounted for in a 
     fund other than such General Fund; and
       ``(B) revenues from Federal sources.
       ``(3) The term `revenues from Federal sources' means 
     revenues derived from payments made by the Federal Government 
     to the District of Columbia, including fees or charges for 
     products or services, grants, payments in lieu of taxes, and 
     direct appropriations.''.

     SEC. 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Independent Annual Audit of District Financial 
     Operations.--The first sentence of section 4(a) of Public Law 
     94-399 (sec. 47-119(a), D.C. Code) is amended by striking ``a 
     report of the revenues'' and all that follows and inserting 
     the following: ``a report of the adjusted District General 
     Fund revenues for the fiscal year (as described in section 
     503(c)(2) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
     Governmental Reorganization Act).''.
       (b) Review by Comptroller General.--Section 715(e) of title 
     31, United States Code, is amended by striking ``report of 
     the breakdown'' and all that follows and inserting the 
     following: ``report of the adjusted District General Fund 
     revenues for the preceding fiscal year that is included in 
     the independent annual audit of the financial operations of 
     the government of the District of Columbia conducted for such 
     fiscal year under section 4(a) of Public Law 94-399.''.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to fiscal years 
     beginning with fiscal year 1995.


           Committee Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute: Strike 
     out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Payment 
     Reauthorization Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF ANNUAL FEDERAL PAYMENT TO DISTRICT 
                   OF COLUMBIA FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996.

       Section 503 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
     Governmental Reorganization Act (sec. 47-3406.1, D.C. Code) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) There is authorized to be appropriated as the annual 
     Federal payment to the District of Columbia for fiscal year 
     1996 $660,000,000.''.

     SEC. 3. PERFORMANCE AND FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS 
                   FOR DISTRICT GOVERNMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part D of title IV of the 
     District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act is amended--
       (1) in the heading for such subpart, by striking ``Audit'' 
     and inserting ``Audits and Accountability Requirements''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new section:


               ``performance and financial accountability

       ``Sec. 456. (a) Performance Accountability Plan.--
       ``(1) Submission of annual plan.--Not later than March 1 of 
     each year (beginning with 1995), the Mayor shall develop and 
     submit to the Committee on the District of Columbia of the 
     House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the 
     Comptroller General a performance accountability plan for all 
     departments, agencies, and programs of the government of the 
     District of Columbia for the subsequent fiscal year.
       ``(2) Contents of plan.--The performance accountability 
     plan for a fiscal year shall contain the following:
       ``(A) A statement of measurable, objective performance 
     goals established for all significant activities of the 
     government of the District of Columbia during the fiscal year 
     (including activities funded in whole or in part by the 
     District but performed in whole or in part by some other 
     public or private entity) that describe an acceptable level 
     of performance by the government and a superior level of 
     performance by the government.
       ``(B) A description of the measures of performance to be 
     used in determining whether the government has met the goals 
     established under subparagraph (A) with respect to an 
     activity for a fiscal year. Such measures shall analyze the 
     quantity and quality of the activities involved, and shall 
     include measures of program outcomes and results.
       ``(C) The title of the District of Columbia management 
     employee most directly responsible for the achievement of 
     each goal and the title of such employee's immediate 
     supervisor or superior.
       ``(3) Description of activities subject to court order.--In 
     addition to the material included in the performance 
     accountability plan for a fiscal year under paragraph (2), 
     the plan shall include a description of the activities of the 
     government of the District of Columbia that are subject to a 
     court order during the fiscal year and the requirements 
     placed on such activities by the court order.
       ``(b) Performance Accountability Report.--
       ``(1) Submission of report.--Not later than March 1 of each 
     year (beginning with 1997), the Mayor shall develop and 
     submit to the Committee on the District of Columbia of the 
     House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the 
     Comptroller General a performance accountability report on 
     activities of the government of the District of Columbia 
     during the fiscal year ending on the previous September 30.
       ``(2) Contents of report.--The performance accountability 
     report for a fiscal year shall contain the following:
       ``(A) For each goal of the performance accountability plan 
     submitted under subsection (a) for the year, a statement of 
     the actual level of performance achieved compared to the 
     stated goal for an acceptable level of performance and the 
     goal for a superior level of performance.
       ``(B) The title of the District of Columbia management 
     employee most directly responsible for the achievement of 
     each goal and the title of such employee's immediate 
     supervisor or superior.
       ``(C) A statement of the status of any court orders 
     applicable to the government of the District of Columbia 
     during the year and the steps taken by the government to 
     comply with such orders.
       ``(3) Evaluation of Report.--The Comptroller General, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, shall review and evaluate each performance 
     accountability report submitted under this subsection and not 
     later than April 15 of each year shall submit comments on 
     such report to the Committee on the District of Columbia of 
     the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
       ``(c) Financial Accountability Plan and Report.--
       ``(1) Development and submission.--Not later than March 1, 
     of each year (beginning with 1995) the Mayor shall develop 
     and submit to the Committee on the District of Columbia of 
     the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the 
     Comptroller General a 5-year financial plan for the 
     government of the District of Columbia that contains a 
     description of the steps the government will take to 
     eliminate any differences between expenditures from, and 
     revenues attributable to, each fund of the District of 
     Columbia during the first 5 fiscal years beginning after the 
     submission of the plan.
       ``(2) Report on compliance.--
       ``(A) Submission of report.--Not later than March 1 of 
     every year (beginning with 1997), the Mayor shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on the District of Columbia of the 
     House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate, the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Comptroller 
     General, and the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     on the extent to which the government of the District of 
     Columbia was in compliance during the preceding fiscal year 
     with the applicable requirements of the financial 
     accountability plan submitted for such fiscal year under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Evaluation of report.--The Comptroller General, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Congressional Budget 
     Office, shall review and evaluate the financial 
     accountability compliance report submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) and not later than April 15 of each year shall submit 
     comments on such report to the Committee on the District of 
     Columbia of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       ``(d) Quarterly Financial Reports.--
       ``(1) Submission of quarterly financial reports.--Not later 
     than fifteen days after the end of every calendar quarter 
     (beginning with a report for the quarter beginning October 1, 
     1994), the Mayor shall submit to the Committee on the 
     District of Columbia of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the 
     Subcommittees on the District of Columbia of the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, a report on the financial and budgetary status of the 
     government of the District of Columbia for the previous 
     quarter.
       ``(2) Contents of report.--Each quarterly financial report 
     submitted under paragraph (1) shall include the following 
     information:
       ``(A) A comparison of actual to forecasted cash receipts 
     and disbursements for each month of the quarter, as presented 
     in the District's fiscal year consolidated cash forecast 
     which shall be supported and accompanied by cash forecasts 
     for the general fund and each of the District government's 
     other funds other than the capital projects fund and trust 
     and agency funds.
       ``(B) A projection of the remaining months cash forecast 
     for that fiscal year.
       ``(C) Explanations of (i) the differences between actual 
     and forecasted cash amounts for each of the months in the 
     quarter, and (ii) any changes in the remaining months 
     forecast as compared to the original forecast for such months 
     of that fiscal year.
       ``(D) The effect of such changes, actual and projected, on 
     the total cash balance of the remaining months and for the 
     fiscal year.
       ``(E) Explanations of the impact on meeting the budget, how 
     the results may be reflected in a supplemental budget 
     request, or how other policy decisions may be necessary which 
     may require the agencies to reduce expenditures in other 
     areas.
       ``(F) An aging of the outstanding receivables and payables, 
     with an explanation of how they are reflected in the forecast 
     of cash receipts and disbursements.
       ``(G) For each department or agency, the actual number of 
     full-time equivalent positions, the actual number of full-
     time employees, the actual number of part-time employees, and 
     the actual number of temporary employees, together with the 
     source of funding for each such category of positions and 
     employees.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents of the 
     District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act is amended--
       (1) in the item relating to subpart 2 of part D of title 
     IV, by striking ``Audit'' and inserting ``Audits and 
     Accountability Requirements''; and
       (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 455 the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 456. Performance and financial accountability.''.

  Mr. STARK (during the reading) Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment 
in the nature of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend 
the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
Reorganization Act to reauthorize the annual Federal payment to the 
District of Columbia for fiscal year 1996, and for other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________