[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 171 (Wednesday, November 1, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11627-H11661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 252 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2546.

                              {time}  1533


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2546) making appropriations for the government of the district of 
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against 
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Washington in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, 20 years of home rule and 15 years of unrestrained 
spending have brought the District government to the brink of financial 
insolvency.
  The District government has had the same mayor for 13 of those 20 
years. It is very difficult sometimes to discern charisma from 
leadership, and when that occurs and the latter is lacking, 
unsuspecting citizens are left to shoulder the burden.
  The bill we bring to you today will provide the District government 
with a total budget of $4.97 billion for fiscal year 1996 consisting of 
$4.87 billion for operating expenses and $102 million for capital 
outlay. I believe $4.97 billion is sufficient to provide adequate 
services given the size--68 square miles--and population--570,000--of 
the city. The District needs to do a better job of managing and setting 
priorities. It needs to be held accountable. I believe that will be 
done through the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management 
Assistance Authority that was established earlier this year by Public 
Law 104-8. The authority is chaired by Dr. Brimmer, and I am confident 
with he and his colleagues will be successful in encouraging meaningful 
structural reforms and accountability in the District government.
  Mr. Chairman, the $4.97 billion consists of $2.8 billion of the 
District's own funds, and $712 million in Federal funds provided in 
this bill, $1 billion in Federal grants, and $362 million in private 
and other funds, and $161 million in intra-District funds.
  The $712 million in Federal funds recommended in this bill is 
consistent with our 602(b) allocation in budget authority and outlays. 
That amount includes a Federal payment to the general fund of $660 
million as authorized in Public Law 103-373 and requested in the 
President's budget. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this payment by the 
Federal Government is generous.
  The other part of the $712 million is the $52 million for the Federal 
contribution to the police, fire, teachers, and judges retirement 
funds. This amount is $70 thousand below the President's request and 
reflects a reduction that was necessary in order to comply with our 
602(b) allocation.


                      district's financial crisis

  During fiscal year 1994 it became apparent that the District 
government was in serious financial trouble. The District's annual 
financial statement for fiscal year 1994 confirmed everyone's 
suspiction--the biggest annual deficit in the District's history had 
occurred and the government was technically insolvent.
  Realizing what was about to occur, the House fifteen months ago made 
a decision that was long overdue. It recognized that there was very 
little accountability in the District government and a great deal of 
deception. Although the budgets in the past were balanced on paper, the 
city was overspending its budget and would soon be out of cash unless 
it changed its ways. The House, on a bipartisan basis, voted to cut the 
District's spending by $150 million--no change was made to its 
revenues.
  When the bill came out of conference last year the reductions were 
$140 million and 2,000 positions as well as a cut in the Federal 
payment of $10 million.
  A year later the District is still in a financial crisis.


                     financial management authority

  Recognizing this the Congress in April of this year created a 
Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. The 
Authority became operative in June and in the last 5 months has made 
some tough decisions. I have a lot of confidence in the Authority and 
believe it is headed in the right direction to bring the District 
government back from the brink of financial disaster to a sound 
financial footing.


                 bill appropriates all revenue sources

  Unlike past years, our bill this year appropriates all of the 
District's revenues which include the Federal payment, local taxes and 
other local revenues, and Federal and other grants. In past years the 
bill did not include Federal and other grants which were considered 
nonappropriated revenues. The 

[[Page H 11628]]

independent audit for fiscal year 1994 showed that two-thirds of the 
District's $335 million deficit was due to this nonappropriated 
category.


                           action by district

  While the bill does not go as far as some think it should, our 
actions at the subcommittee level have resulted in what I believe to be 
positive action by the District. The day after our markup the Board of 
Education voted to allow the Superintendent to use his discretion in 
contracting out the management of any of the 164 public schools. 
According to the press the Board as well as the Mayor and Council are 
taking a look at the salaries of school board members which are said to 
be the highest in the country. City officials have agreed to turn over 
the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant to an independent authority 
under a pact with suburban governments.
  One of the Council members introduced a bill to consolidate the 
District government's economic development entities into a single unit 
to cut costs and improve services. In addition, the Council Chairman 
sent up a draft copy of a bill to establish a pension plan for new 
hires that will not have any unfunded liability.
  So all in all I believe our actions are getting some results even 
though the legislative provisions were dropped from our bill in our 
subsequent markup on October 19. Instead of including the language in 
our bill, we are asking the Financial Authority to review several 
matters listed on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the report and try to resolve 
them at the local level and report to the Congress in March 1996 on the 
disposition of the items and recommendations for resolving those that 
are still outstanding at that time.
  It is vitally important that District officials try to change the 
culture that has contributed greatly to the city's financial 
predicament.


                         high per capita costs

  Another top priority of the Authority will have to be--and I 
reiterate the words ``have to be''--getting the per capita costs of 
operating the District under control. By almost every measure the cost 
of delivering services here in the District is the highest around. 
According to a Congressional Research Service comparison of the 
District of Columbia to cities of comparable size for fiscal year 1992, 
the District had the highest per capita costs for police, fire, 
education and welfare services.
  To provide police protection in 1992 the District government spent 
$467 per person compared to $248 for the city of Boston, MA. Regarding 
Emergency Assistance Services, the City Auditor recently reported that 
a ``comparison between the District and neighboring jurisdictions 
revealed that the District provided the most generous emergency 
assistance benefits in the region during fiscal years 1993 and 1994. 
The District provided benefits up to a maximum of $4,350, while Prince 
George's and Montgomery Counties in Maryland limit their maximum 
benefits to $750.'' The City Auditor's report goes on further to say 
that ``the District lags behind in receiving its full share of the 50 
percent Federal reimbursement through participation in the Emergency 
Assistance Services program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services.'' This occurs because of deficiencies in meeting 
certain Federal documentation requirements, so therefore the District 
has to pick up the full cost of the program when they cannot provide 
the documentation.


                    ``waste'' in district government

  It is waste such as this which I believe is causing a lot of the 
city's problems. Recently the court-appointed Receiver of the 
District's foster care services discovered another instance of waste. 
According to press reports, and I quote: ``Miller (the court-appointed 
receiver) said that in an astounding example of lax cost control, his 
staff discovered that the agency is paying an additional $5,000 a month 
rent for cafeteria space in the basement of (a building) without ever 
having installed the cafeteria.'' Miller goes on to talk about other 
problems like a questionable $25 million data-processing contract. The 
point is that this and so many other reports and testimonies we have 
had seem to indicate that there is a lot of waste going on in the 
District and if we can at least begin to eliminate some of this we may 
see some of those high per capita costs come down.


                             accountability

  We need accountability in the District government, both for finances 
as well as the delivery of services. We are hopeful that the Authority 
will begin to show the kind of results we are all looking forward to, 
and we hope that this will be done in an atmosphere of cooperation with 
the Mayor and City Council.


                               conclusion

  We are all in this together and we each have to accept our role in 
this process of making our Nation's Capital the urban jewel it should 
be. It is Congress' role to appropriate. The Authority's role is to 
formulate the financial controls and the process to improve services so 
that the city can perform its role, which is to execute and carry out 
that process in a disciplined and professional manner.
  We hope much will be accomplished this year so that we do not see 
more of the city's operations falling under court orders or into 
receivership. That is the final action that will need to be taken if 
the city cannot get control of its spending and reduce its costs to 
reasonable levels.
  Other very important issues, such as tax reform and health and 
welfare issues, will also have to be reviewed by the authorizing 
committees. These reforms will be needed to revitalize the economy of 
the District and will be the subject of many discussions and possible 
future legislation.
  In closing, I want to thank all of the members of our subcommittee 
for their assistance in bringing this bill to the Committee.
  Mr. Bonilla of Texas, Mr. Kingston of Georgia, Mr. Frelinghuysen of 
New Jersey, Mr. Neumann of Wisconsin, Mr. Dixon of California, the 
ranking member of our subcommittee who served as chairman for the past 
15 years, Mr. Durbin of Illinois, and Ms. Kaptur of Ohio.
  Also Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff for a job well done 
under some very difficult circumstances.
  John Simmons of my personal staff has done an outstanding job in 
coordinating between the Speaker's office, the appropriations and 
authorizing committees, the Speaker's task force and Members' officers.
  Mary Porter who does an excellent job keeping track of the numbers. I 
am told she has been doing this for the Committee for 35 years--she 
started back when our departed colleague Mr. Natcher first became 
chairman of the DC Subcommittee. She is detailed to the Committee from 
the District government and works with the numbers when they are first 
put together in the Mayor's budget office, and follows them through the 
Council, the House, the Senate and conference. She is to be commended 
for the high quality of her work as well as for her endurance and 
perseverance.
  Mike Fischetti is on loan from GAO. He is a CPA and a certified fraud 
examiner who is in great demand these days. We are very fortunate to 
have the benefit of his expertise and analysis.
  And of course Migo Miconi, who has been on the staff for longer than 
he cares to admit.
  Each of them does an excellent job and together they make a great 
team.
   Mr. Chairman, I believe the bill we bring to the House today is a 
good bill and one that the District can live with.
  At the appropriate time I will offer a managers amendment to clarify 
language concerning adoptions by unmarried couples.
   Mr. Chairman, I strongly recommend this bill to my colleagues and 
urge an ``aye'' vote.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. I 
do so with great reluctance because while I do not always agree 
philosophically with the distinguished gentleman from New York, I 
realize that and understand that we both respect each other's opinions. 
I commend Chairman Walsh for his work on a very difficult bill, for his 
sincere efforts to bring the District back to financial health.
  I also want to thank the staff that he just mentioned, Migo Micone, 
Mr. John Simmons, Mike Fischetti, and Mary 

[[Page H 11629]]

Porter, and a special thanks to the minority consultant on this bill, 
Cheryl Smith.
  Additionally, I would like to throw an accolade to the delegate from 
the District of Columbia, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
[Ms. Norton]. She has done yeoman's work in trying to work with both 
Republicans and Democrats to craft a better bill for the District. She 
has been tireless in her efforts to facilitate agreements between all 
of the various parties that have competing interests in this bill.
  This bill is important for what it does not contain as much as for 
what it does contain. In particular, I commend the chairman, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], for decisions to drop some 40 
legislative provisions from the bill that would have created 
considerable controversy and delayed consideration of this matter. In 
this respect, the bill has been greatly improved over earlier versions.
  I also want to commend our chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh], for recommending the full Federal payment for the District. 
This bill includes $660 million for the Federal payment in fiscal year 
1996, the full authorized amount, and $52 million for the Federal 
contributions to the District's retirement funds for police, fire, 
judges, and teachers. There has been no disagreement on these funds, 
and they are fully provided for in this bill.
  Unfortunately, though, notwithstanding the good parts of this bill, 
this bill falls far short. We all know that the District is in a 
financial crisis. Yet this bill imposes a spending cap of $4.867 
billion on the District of Columbia's operating budget for fiscal year 
1996. The spending cap will force the Mayor, under the direction of the 
District of Columbia Financial Control Board, to allocate $256 million 
in additional cuts below the cuts already recommended by the District 
of Columbia's Financial Review Board.

  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill because it tells the District that 
it cannot spend all of the tax revenue it generates. Let me repeat 
that: all of the tax revenue that it generates from District residents. 
It is a bad bill, because Congress has decided, not the District nor 
the Financial Board, knows best about what to do in this situation. As 
it relates to the District, apparently, the Republican rhetoric to get 
the Federal Government out of the lives of Americans does not apply to 
the District's citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, in April of this year, Congress established a new 
Financial Oversight Board comprised of District residents to solve the 
District's financial and management problems and to bring the 
District's budget into balance over a 4-year period. That legislation 
included some very tough medicine for the District including granting 
the Financial Oversight Board the most extensive powers of any such 
board in the Nation.
  In September, the Mayor, the City Council, and the Financial 
Oversight Board reached an agreement on significant budget cuts and 
staffing reductions that will result in over 5,200 positions being cut 
from the fiscal year 1996 budget. These personnel cuts amount to a 13-
percent cut from the staffing levels originally requested by the Mayor.
  Yet despite these reductions, this bill would require the District to 
cut an additional $256 million more than the Financial Control Board 
says is prudent. These cuts are not endorsed by the Financial Control 
Board.
  Mr. Chairman, members of the Financial Oversight Board now find that 
months of hard working with the District officials and analyzing the 
District's budget have seen their figures and facts thrown out the 
door. I cannot understand how the majority and the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh] in particular can say it accepts the findings of the 
Control Board and they totally disagree with him.
  For the first time I recall the committee has knowingly used figures 
in this bill that are wrong. The figures are just plain wrong. The 
majority continues to disregard the Control Board's recommendation that 
$5.123 billion be provided for the District's operating budget in 
fiscal year 1996, not $5.16 billion, not $4.86 billion, not $5.12 
billion. This bill falls far short of the mark.

  If we approve this bill, we severely undermine the credibility and 
the confidence of the Control Board. When the Control Board was put in 
place, its main responsibility was to establish under their budget how 
much the District Government would cost to run for the fiscal year and 
to recommend to us appropriate cuts. We have not accepted their figure 
nor have we accepted their recommendations, and so I just fail to see 
how we are placing any confidence in the Board that has done a stellar 
job thus far in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill, because the District will not be 
able to use its own money to buy books for students, repair the 
schools, pick up the garbage, fight crime, maintaining other critical 
services for the District residents. The additional budget cuts 
endorsed by the majority were made without consultation with the 
District officials or Control Board regarding their impact on city 
services. These cuts are not based on sound analysis or thorough review 
of the budget savings that responsibly could be achieved by the 
District in less than a year's time nor any evaluation of the resources 
needed to sustain education, public safety, sanitation, public works 
for those who work and live in and visit the District.
  This is an analysis that was conducted by the Control Board and 
rejected out of hand by the majority.
  I will insert in the Congressional Record at the end of my statement 
the various documents submitted by the Financial Control Board 
concerning its recommendations for the District for 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from New York has 
indicated, and will indicate, that this bill will result only in an $85 
million cut for the District below the 1995 budget. In reality, this 
cut will be much deeper. Realistically speaking, these cuts will likely 
have to be made over a 9-month period, because it will take the 
Financial Oversight Board and the Mayor several months to determine 
where to make these cuts, and the choices are not pretty.
  The District already owes millions to vendors who have already 
provided services to the city. In August, the District stopped making 
Medicaid payments to hospitals and health care providers because of the 
lack of funds. Last week, the Washington Post included an article about 
the inability of the District to promptly repair broken street lights 
and traffic signals because it owes the local utility company nearly $4 
million.

  The District cannot pay health insurance premiums for city employees 
because of shortage of funds. Low-income citizens cannot receive timely 
care at D.C. General Hospital because of lack of resources to purchase 
supplies and to retain medical personnel. Distraught firefighters must 
call on surrounding jurisdictions to fight two-alarm fires because 
funding shortages have prevented them from maintaining the fleet of 
fire trucks.
  Many believe the District's schools are among the worst in the 
Nation, and that is why we will be debating the Gunderson education 
reform package later in this bill. Yet this bill cuts funds that could 
be used to hire teachers, to buy books and repair schools, to provide 
the city, this city, with the quality of education that I think we all 
agree it deserves.
  This bill will make this bad situation only worse.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill because it clearly violates 
the home rule of the District of Columbia and has nothing to do with 
the financial situation here. The bill amends the code to ban all 
Federal and local funding for abortion and would ban even privately 
funded abortions conducted in District-operated or funded facilities 
except to save the life of the mother, rape, or incest. These 
restrictions go far beyond any previous restrictions in the District of 
Columbia appropriations bill. They simply do not belong in this bill.
  Second, the bill amends the local statutes to dictate to District 
residents who may or may not adopt a child in the District of Columbia. 
This provision simply does not belong in this bill and has nothing to 
do with the financial condition of this city.
  Mr. Chairman, these are policy decisions that severely trample the 
rights of District residents to make their own 

[[Page H 11630]]

judgments about the matters through their elected officials. The 
inclusion of these provisions in this bill is even more outrageous 
because, with the exception of the Delegate from the District of 
Columbia, many Members of this body have no accountability to the 
District.
  Mr. Chairman, the President has indicated that he will veto this bill 
because the budget cuts are too deep and the home-rule violations are 
intrusive.
  The bill should be defeated.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to once again acknowledge the hard work 
of the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh]. He has taken 
a lot of heat on this bill. We just disagree with the judgment that the 
way to get the finances in order in this community is, first, to use 
the wrong numbers so the cuts turn out to be greater than he says, not 
148, but 256; that, in fact, the way to do it is just to arbitrarily 
take the 250 and tell the Control Board to make those cuts.
  Second, we disagree that now that the Republicans are in control they 
can do whatever they want to, they can bring up any bill they want to 
on abortion, they can bring up a clean bill to affect the NEA or any of 
the other 26 organizations that they want to.
  Those matters do not belong in the financial condition of the bill; 
but, nevertheless, I understand his dilemma.
  The materials referred to are as follows:
         District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
           Management Assistance Authority,
                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 1995.
     Hon. Julian Dixon,
     Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on the District of 
         Columbia, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Dixon: I am writing in response to your October 
     19, 1995 letter regarding recent actions taken by the House 
     Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
       The Authority is aware that the Subcommittee's actions, if 
     passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President, 
     will result in fiscal year 1996 cuts to the District of 
     Columbia of $256 million below the $5.123 billion level 
     recommended by the Authority in our August 15, 1995, report 
     to Congress.
       On September 28, 1995, I wrote to Chairman Walsh to express 
     the views of the Authority on the proposed cuts to the 
     District's appropriations. I advised him that additional cuts 
     below the Authority's recommendations, made without further 
     study, could harm service delivery and have a negative impact 
     on District residents. A copy of my letter to Chairman Walsh 
     is enclosed.
       You observed that recent statements attributed to me in the 
     media suggested that we now support the proposed budget 
     reductions. Actually, in the meeting with Messrs. Gingrich, 
     Livingston, and Walsh on October 17, I was not asked whether 
     the Board would support the lower budget ceiling. Rather, I 
     was asked only whether we would be prepared to allocate the 
     amount appropriated. I said we would do that.
       Let me assure you that the Authority continues to stand by 
     its recommendations on the District budget. We continue to 
     believe that an adverse impact on the city is likely if the 
     additional cuts become law. Many District agencies already 
     are experiencing serious problems in maintaining adequate 
     service delivery and in meeting their obligations to vendors. 
     Cuts to levels below our recommendations would only 
     exacerbate these problems.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Andrew F. Brimmer,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosure.
         District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
           Management Assistance Authority,
                               Washington, DC, September 28, 1995.
     Hon. James T. Walsh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee 
         on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Last week, the House Subcommittee on 
     Appropriations for the District of Columbia marked up the 
     District's transition budget for fiscal year 1996. The 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority (DCFRA) has reviewed the Subcommittee's 
     actions. We are respectfully submitting this letter because 
     we have several concerns about the potential impact of many 
     of those actions.
       According to preliminary information on the Subcommittee 
     mark up, the Subcommittee approved further reductions of 
     District appropriations by $258 million and 461 FTEs. The 
     Authority is very concerned about these additional 
     reductions. Public Law 104-8, which created the Authority, 
     also laid out a process for addressing the District's 
     financial and management weaknesses. This process for fiscal 
     year 1996 called not only for a review of the initial fiscal 
     year 1996 transition budget, but also for preparation of a 
     supplemental budget for fiscal year 1996 and a financial plan 
     that must be approved by February 1, 1996. The special 
     process used for fiscal year 1996 was developed because there 
     was agreement that more information and analysis was needed 
     before a final fiscal year budget was approved. The Authority 
     and staff spent considerable time reviewing District 
     documents and meeting with District officials before making 
     both our July 15 recommendations to the District and the 
     final recommendations contained in our August 15 report to 
     the Congress. We believe additional reductions to the 
     District budget, without further review and analysis, could 
     harm service delivery and be counter-productive to the 
     process stipulated in Public Law 104-8. The Authority also 
     has a number of concerns about some of the other provisions 
     that surfaced during the mark up of the District 
     appropriations bill. I detail our concerns later in this 
     letter.

                               Background

       Before I provide our detailed views on the various 
     Subcommittee's amendments and other actions, I want to 
     emphasize the careful analysis and assessment which served as 
     a basis for the Authority's initial recommendations to the 
     District and our final recommendations to the Congress. The 
     District of Columbia initially submitted a budget for fiscal 
     year 1996 to the Congress on May 8, 1995. In accordance with 
     Public Law 104-8, Section 208(a)(1), on July 15, 1995, the 
     Authority made recommendations on the fiscal year 1996 budget 
     to the Major, the Council, the President, and the Congress. 
     The Council adopted a revised fiscal year 1996 transition 
     budget and on August 1, 1995, submitted the budget to the 
     Authority, the President, and the Congress in accordance with 
     Public Law 104-8, Section 208(a)(2). On August 15, 1995, the 
     Authority issued a report to the Congress that contained 
     recommendations for revisions to the District's fiscal year 
     1996 transition budget in accordance with Public Law 104-8, 
     Section 208(a)(3).
       As was intended in the legislation, the process has been 
     iterative. The final budget based on Authority 
     recommendations was significantly different from the original 
     budget submitted by the District in May. Based on our 
     recommendations, not only did the final District budget call 
     for more than 5,000 FTE reductions, but the District also has 
     started to develop information that will be valuable in 
     developing the supplemental fiscal year 1996 budget and 
     future budgets and financial plans.
       As a part of this process, the Authority staff worked 
     closely with both the District's executive and legislative 
     branch offices. This included meetings with the Mayor, the 
     Chairman and Members of the City Council, the City 
     Administrator, the Director of the Budget, and the Directors 
     and Chief Financial Officers of Several District agencies.
       We analyzed numerous District-wide issues including 
     personnel, financial management systems, and cash 
     projections. This information, combined with a review of 
     previous studies of the District (including the November, 
     1990, Rivlin report), provided the context necessary for the 
     Authority to address District-wide issues. Furthermore, we 
     undertook extensive analysis of current personnel levels, FTE 
     calculations, and historical personnel patterns. This 
     analysis was the basis of our detailed recommendations on 
     District FTE levels. We also met with officials in the 
     District's Office of Financial Management, City 
     Administrator, Controller, and agency heads and Chief 
     Financial Officers to assess the financial information 
     management system weaknesses, and we concluded a new system 
     is needed immediately.
       In addition to our analysis of District-wide issues, we 
     also held detailed discussions with agency officials and 
     analyzed many aspects of agencies' budget projections. Some 
     examples include:
       District Public Schools: we reviewed personnel reports for 
     locations and types of employees and school building 
     utilization reports;
       Medicaid within DHS: we examined cost reports and cash flow 
     analysis to determine the reasonableness of the fiscal year 
     1996 projections;
       District General Hospital: we met with hospital officials 
     and reviewed management initiatives;
       Department of Public Works: we reviewed historical 
     personnel levels and studied management initiatives designed 
     to reengineer DPW programs and improve customer service;
       Department of Corrections: we analyzed staffing levels and 
     patterns and studied the costs of housing prisoners in 
     federal facilities.


                    views of fte and funding changes

       The Authority does not currently have final data on the 
     District of Columbia budget as marked up by the Subcommittee. 
     Nevertheless, it would appear from available information that 
     total budget figures included in the draft House documents 
     are preliminary. For example, the House Subcommittee summary 
     budget shows total expenditures of $4.943 billion. However, 
     detailed agency breakouts total to $4.867 billion.
       Based on the revised District budget (August 1 budget) of 
     $5.148 billion and the detailed information contained in the 
     Subcommittee's preliminary tables, the Subcommittee calls for 
     reductions of 461 FTEs and $258 million! The attached table 
     illustrates these changes by appropriation title.

                              FTE changes

       The Authority is very concerned about further reductions of 
     461 FTEs contained in the 

[[Page H 11631]]

     Subcommittee budget. These reductions would have a 
     deleterious effect on the ability of many District agencies 
     to carry out their missions and to deliver services to 
     residents. We are particularly disturbed by the following 
     proposed reductions:
       (1) The Department of Public Works was reduced by 146 FTEs 
     and $17.7 million. The Authority believes these additional 
     reductions would be very harmful, especially since, in recent 
     years, DPW has already taken significant cuts and reduced 
     many upper and middle management positions. In our 
     recommendation directing the District to allocate an 
     additional 704 reductions, we specifically recommended that 
     the District not allocate any of these reductions to DPW. We 
     believed at that time that additional DPW cuts would 
     seriously harm an agency critical to District service 
     provision. We still believe this would be the case. 
     Consequently, we do not support these reductions.
       (2) The University of the District of Columbia was reduced 
     by 120 FTEs, from 1,079 to 959, and by $7 million. the 
     Authority does not support this reduction. In meetings held 
     with Authority staff, UDC officials noted that the revised 
     budget of 1,079 FTEs, which reduced more than 200 FTEs from 
     actual fiscal year 1994 levels, would adversely impact the 
     university. In our recommendation, we urged the university to 
     assess its undergraduate and graduate offerings as one part 
     of its efforts to reduce costs. Cutting additional FTEs at 
     this time before such a study is complete is not prudent.
       (3) The Department of Employment Services was reduced by 86 
     positions. The Authority does not support this reduction and 
     notes that this budget had already been reduced by more than 
     150 FTEs. At the August Budget Summit, District officials 
     noted that any further reductions in this department could 
     result in the loss of substantial federal grant funds, which 
     comprise approximately one-half of this agency's budget.
       (4) The Department of Human Services (DHS) was reduced by 
     149 FTEs. The Authority does not support this reduction. The 
     Authority had already recommended reductions from on-board 
     DHS staffing of 637 FTEs. As with the other reductions, 
     further cuts without additional study could harm this 
     critical agency which serves the District's most 
     disadvantaged citizens.

                       Funding and other changes

       The Subcommittee markup also contained a number of other 
     financial and organizational changes that the Authority does 
     not support without additional analytical study.
       (1) The Office of Financial Management was reduced by more 
     than $30 million, which mostly consisted of funds for the new 
     Financial Management System (FMS). The Authority strongly 
     disagrees with this action. We recommended that $28 million 
     be appropriated to finance the development and installation 
     of the FMS. However, funding for the FMS was shifted to pay-
     as-you-go capital project, a shift the Authority opposes. 
     Improved financial management requires a new FMS now. By 
     shifting FMS funding to the capital budget, the project would 
     have to compete with other capital needs, which could 
     delay FMS' implementation.
       (2) The Inspector General's budget was decreased by an 
     additional $73,000. The Authority does not support this 
     reduction. The Authority recommended that resources for this 
     office be increased, not decreased. Public Law 104-8 created 
     a more powerful IG, a role that could not be fulfilled if 
     funding for the office is decreased. In a related issue, the 
     District of Columbia Auditor staffing was nearly doubled from 
     12 FTEs to 22 FTEs and funding increased by more than 
     $300,000. The D.C. Auditor performs a valuable function, but 
     a doubling of the staff, especially in the face of reductions 
     in the IG's office, is not warranted.
       (3) Funding for the City Administrator's Office was more 
     than doubled from $4.7 million to $9.7 million. Officials in 
     the City Administrator's Office were not previously aware of 
     this change and did not know the purpose of the substantial 
     funds increase. Based on information available, the Authority 
     does not support this funding change.
       (4) The Board of Elections and Ethics' budget and FTEs were 
     doubled. Funds increased from $2.1 million to $4.3 million 
     and FTEs increased from 35 to 73. Based on information 
     available, the Authority does not support this increase.
       (5) WMATA was reduced by $12.5 million. WMATA is jointly 
     funded by Washington Metropolitan Area governments. Reduction 
     of the District's subsidy could impact the entire system. Any 
     change should be considered as part of a broader agreement. 
     The Authority advises against making such reductions without 
     additional study and consultation with other area 
     jurisdictions.
       (6) District employees health benefits were reduced by $68 
     million. Total health benefit costs are currently $148 
     million, which includes approximately 18,000 employees under 
     the Federal Health Benefits program and the remaining 
     employees under the District's health program. The District's 
     Office of Personnel is planning a major restructuring of the 
     health benefits program, but reducing funding by more than 45 
     percent would undoubtedly have harmful consequences for the 
     District. Therefore, the Authority does not support this 
     reduction.


                        views on other proposals

       The Subcommittee in markup considered 40 specific 
     provisions, some of which were approved, others of which were 
     withdrawn. The Authority has views on a number of these 
     proposals:
       (1) Ryan White federal grant funds be disbursed by the 
     District within 90 days. The Authority believes this is sound 
     management and good policy, but it should not be legislated. 
     Such a policy should not be limited to Ryan White grant 
     funds.
       (2) Directs Board of Education to: (a) contract out all 
     food services and security services operations, and (b) 
     develop management, data systems, and training. The Authority 
     believes the District should be encouraged to explore these 
     contracting out options, but the decision should be based on 
     cost-benefit analysis, as opposed to an arbitrary mandate. 
     The Authority agrees that management and data systems are 
     needed. Such systems should be compatible with District-wide 
     systems.
       (3) Board of Education should maintain the number of 
     school-based educational and clerical employees at a minimum 
     of 7,000. The Authority believes that school-based FTEs 
     should be set according to an agreed staffing plan, but not 
     by mandates at arbitrary levels.
       (4) establishes ceiling of 2,200 non-school based 
     employees. As stated under provision 3, staffing should be 
     based on a plan.
       (5) Requires that DC Public Schools financial management 
     and related information be interfaced with D.C. systems and 
     accessible to staff of Mayor, Council, Congress, and the 
     Authority. The Authority agrees that DCPS' system must be 
     compatible with District-wide information.
       (6) Directs School Board to develop school-by-school gross 
     operating budget. The Authority does not believe such a 
     provision should be mandated. Other school systems budgets 
     should be studied to see if they budget on the basis of 
     individual schools. The advantages and disadvantages should 
     be weighed, but the decision whether to adopt this type of 
     budget delineation should be left to school officials.
       (7) Requires escrowing of motor vehicle fuel taxes. The 
     Authority is opposed to this provision. Recently enacted 
     legislation allowed the District to receive highway funds 
     with a delayed match. This legislation required the 
     establishment of a fund to provide for these matches in the 
     future. The fund was established, but Congress did not 
     mandate the funding mechanism. However, the Authority plans 
     to review these requirements and to provide assurance that 
     the provisions are carried out. Without knowing the total 
     amount of fuel tax and matching funds, setting up a fund 
     escrowing these amounts would be ill advised.
       (8) Work rules for police, firefighters, and teachers 
     should include performance measures and the District should 
     hire consultants to negotiate labor contracts. The Authority 
     agrees that work rules should include performance measures, 
     but it is opposed to mandating the retention of a consultant 
     for labor negotiations.
       (9) Requires the Inspector General to audit use of 
     vehicles, cellular phones, fax machines, and televisions. The 
     Authority believes that, although these issues are important 
     and may be worthy of study, specifically requiring the IG to 
     perform these audits is ill-advised. Areas studied by the IG 
     should be identified in a strategic plan. The IG is required 
     to prepare a plan in conjunction with the CFO and the 
     Authority. Such a plan may identify other areas that are more 
     urgent than these mandated audits. The resources of the IG 
     should be allocated on the basis of the most critical issues 
     to be faced.
       (10) Directs District to develop a plan for a health care 
     facility or close D.C. General by September 30, 1996. The 
     Authority is strongly opposed to this provision. The hospital 
     should not be forced to close at the end of the fiscal year 
     without alternative provision for services to the most needy 
     in the community. This would have a drastic effect on the 
     health industry in the Washington area since other hospitals 
     would have to absorb the uncompensated care of those 
     displaced by D.C. General's closing. In its August 15 report 
     to Congress on the District's Fiscal Year 1996 budget, the 
     Authority supported a proposal to turn over control of the 
     Hospital to a Public Benefits Corporation. The Authority also 
     noted, however, that the Authority and the District need much 
     more information about the new entity proposed to be created, 
     the impact of the shift on employee rights, and other 
     factors.
       (11) Requires management assessment studies in several 
     areas and requires the establishment of 25 inspection 
     stations. The Authority has already recommended pilot studies 
     in three areas: Department of Public Works, Department of 
     Administrative Services, and Office of Personnel. The 
     potential need for more inspection stations will be a part of 
     these efforts.
       (12) Requires preparation of budget within 15 days of 
     enactment of the appropriation bill. The Authority agrees 
     with this recommendation.
       (13) Technical changes to the provisions establishing the 
     Financial Responsibility Authority. The Authority agrees with 
     this recommendation.
       (14) Gives the Authority responsibility to appoint the 
     Chief Financial Officer and Inspector General if the 
     positions remain vacant for more than 60 days. The Authority 
     supports this provision.
       (15) Requires CFO to make appropriation allotments to each 
     certifying and contract officer and provides that these 
     officials who incur obligations in excess of their allotments 
     shall be in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act and shall be 
     personally liable. In 

[[Page H 11632]]

     these cases, these officials will be terminated without by 
     the CFO without recourse. The Authority supports the basic 
     concept of this provision to establish accountability for 
     managers. However, there must be some recognition of the fact 
     that the District is still working with the same system that 
     was in place in the past. As pointed out by GAO and others, 
     there are limitations to the accuracy and timeliness of the 
     data in this system. These are the same data that officials 
     must use to make their certifications. However, the Authority 
     recommends that the mandatory firing provision be eliminated, 
     especially a firing provision without recourse. The CFO 
     should be given the authority to make all personnel decisions 
     with respect to those peoples reporting to the CFO.
       (16) Places a cap on the amount appropriated for each type 
     of fund and requires that funds must be obligated by object 
     class, purpose, and department. Variances require approval of 
     CFO, Authority, and advance notice to appropriations 
     subcommittees. The Authority generally agrees with this 
     provision, except for advance notice to the Congress. The 
     Authority believes quarterly reporting as required under 
     Public Law 104-8 may be sufficient. The Authority also points 
     out that the limitations of the current financial management 
     system could hamper implementation of these kinds of 
     controls. As noted previously, the Authority strongly 
     supports the immediate development and implementation of a 
     new financial management system.
       (17) Prohibits debt restructuring. The Authority is opposed 
     to this restriction. There may be situations where debt 
     restructuring is a prudent course of action. The Authority is 
     required to approve such actions.
       (18) Waives personnel rules to downsize workforce and 
     prohibits buyout incentives to employees in positions that 
     will be downsized. The Authority notes PL 104-8 waives all 
     personnel rules if reductions are carried out as a result of 
     an approved financial plan and budget. The Authority also 
     believes that this is a good general rule, but there may be a 
     case where the District would want to encourage turnover in 
     positions that they would backfill. This should be an 
     exceptional condition, but it should not be closed off to the 
     District as an option.
       (19) Repeals Displaced Workers Act. In general, the 
     Authority supports eliminating barriers to privatization and 
     therefore supports the concept of this proposal.
       (20) Requires the District to develop a plan to close 
     Lorton. Although a study of Lorton should be an integral part 
     of future options for the District, the Authority opposes 
     this provision because it requires closing the facility 
     without benefit of a study. The Authority would be willing to 
     coordinate such a study. The District should be able to 
     consider a variety of options concerning Lorton. All actions 
     should be the result of the Financial Plan and Budget 
     process.
       (21) Requires privatization of Blue Plains. The Authority 
     opposes mandating the privatization of Blue Plains 
     immediately. The Authority agrees that the problems at Blue 
     Plains need to be immediately addressed, but Congress should 
     allow the implementation of the existing review process and 
     long range plan. This decision also should be left to the 
     planning process of the local government and other 
     jurisdictions which have a direct interest.
       (22) Repeals the Clean Air Compliance Fee Act of 1994. The 
     authority notes that, if the repeal of this provision has tax 
     implications and changes in revenue, the likely impact should 
     be studied before the Act is repealed or modified.
       In closing, I would reiterate that the Authority feels 
     quite strongly that the prices put in place by the District 
     of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Act of 1995 should be used in order to effect 
     positive financial and management changes in the District. 
     This process anticipates a strong role for the Authority in 
     ensuring financial discipline and improving services in the 
     District. I look forward to working with you in ensuring that 
     the process mandated by Congress benefits the District.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Andrew F. Brimmer,
                                                         Chairman.
       Attachment.

                                  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FISCAL YEAR 1996 BUDGET                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Revised                                    House      Percent 
                                                 district      Authority       House       authority     change 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation title:                                                                                            
    Economic Development.....................      $142,661      $139,335      $121,966      -$17,369     -12.47
    Financing and Other Uses.................       273,717       343,717       271,154       -72,563     -21.11
    Government Direction.....................       150,721       149,793       118,290       -31,503     -21.03
    Human Resources..........................             0             0             0             0  .........
    Health and Human Services................     1,859,622     1,845,638     1,729,019      -116,619      -6.32
    Public Education.........................       800,081       789,079       780,519        -8,560      -1.08
    Public Safety and Justice................       960,747       961,559       939,672       -21,887      -2.28
    Public Works.............................       297,568       297,326       267,154       -30,172     -10.15
    Enterprise...............................       663,181       597,156       639,509        42,353      -7.09
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................     5,148,298     5,123,603     4,867,283      -256,320      -5.00
                                              ==================================================================
FTE's:                                                                                                          
    Economic Development.....................         1,800         1,692         1,543          -149      -8.81
    Financing and Other Uses.................        -1,000  ............  ............             0  .........
    Government Direction.....................         1,625         1,465         1,448           -17      -1.16
    Human Resources..........................  ............  ............  ............             0  .........
    Health and Human Services................         6,757         6,289         6,320            31       0.49
    Public Education.........................        12,139        11,670        11,514          -156      -1.34
    Public Safety and Justice................        11,697        11,544        11,588            44       0.38
    Public Works.............................         1,914         1,914         1,768          -146      -7.63
    Enterprise...............................         1,309         1,197         1,129           -68      -5.68
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................        36,241        35,771        35,310          -461      -1.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
           Management Assistance Authority,
                                  Washington, DC, August 15, 1995.
     Hon. Bob Livingston,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     House of Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter transmits the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority's (Authority) report on the District of Columbia's 
     fiscal year 1996 budget in accordance with Public Law 104-8 
     Section 208(a)(3). The report contains recommendations for 
     revisions to the District of Columbia's Fiscal Year 1996 
     transition budget.
       These recommendations are designed to help ensure the 
     District government makes continuous, substantial progress 
     towards equalizing its expenditures and revenues and reducing 
     the cumulative fund balance deficit. They also address other 
     key goals of the legislation. As such, they not only focus on 
     addressing the current fiscal condition of the District, but 
     they also begin a process that will help the District ensure 
     the appropriate and efficient delivery of services and future 
     financial stability. The District has already agreed to take 
     steps to (1) develop pilot performance management projects 
     and (2) to strengthen its financial management information 
     infrastructure so that critical information is available not 
     only to assess the finances of the District, but more 
     importantly to give District officials better real-time 
     information to manage their programs.
       The Authority and its staff stand ready to respond to any 
     questions you may have about this report. We look forward to 
     working with you and your staff.
           Sincerely yours,
                                            Dr. Andrew F. Brimmer,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosure.

    Report of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
 Management Assistance Authority on the District of Columbia's Fiscal 
                            Year 1996 Budget

       The Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act 
     of 1995 (Public Law 104-8) created the Authority to help 
     eliminate District budget deficits and cash shortages; to 
     assist the District in restructuring its organization and 
     work force for more efficient and effective service delivery; 
     and to ensure the long-term economic, financial, and fiscal 
     viability of the District. The review of District budgets is 
     one aspect of carrying out this responsibility. Therefore, 
     the Authority's review of the fiscal year 1996 budget was a 
     much broader look than simply an analysis of budget dollars 
     or the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel. The 
     Authority also focused on improving the quality of services 
     provided to the District. Authority members expressed 
     concerns about maintaining and improving quality services for 
     those who need it most. For example, targets for reductions 
     are focused on administrative and mid-management level 
     personnel, not on the employees who are in front-line service 
     delivery positions.
       Authority members have listened to many citizens at the 
     Authority's public meetings and other forums talk about the 
     quality of services. For example, one citizen said that 
     essential services such as police and emergency services need 
     to be improved. Others have talked about improvements needed 
     in 

[[Page H 11633]]

     the schools or the Department of Corrections. These citizens 
     want and deserve an effective and efficient District 
     Government. The District has many qualified employees who are 
     working hard every day to deliver services to District 
     residents. However, many of the processes for carrying out 
     these programs are ineffective and service delivery suffers 
     no matter how hard employees work.
       In order to carry out its mandate, the Authority worked 
     closely with both the executive and legislative branches of 
     the District Government. In addition to detailed budget 
     analyses by the Authority staff and frequent meetings with 
     District staff, the Authority members held several extended 
     sessions with the Mayor and the Council. The Executive 
     Director met individually with most Council Members. Although 
     review of District government documents and meetings with 
     District officials formed the basis of our review, a vital 
     ingredient was the views of individual District citizens and 
     organizations. Not only did the Authority hear oral 
     statements from more than 100 citizens at public meetings 
     held on July 13, 1995 and August 12, 1995, but hundreds of 
     statements containing comments and suggestions were received 
     by mail. In addition, Authority members and staff have heard 
     from many citizens at community meetings.
       The Authority is making a series of recommendations for 
     revisions to the District's Fiscal Year 1996 transition 
     budget that was enacted by the Council and transmitted to the 
     Authority on August 1, 1995. These recommendations address a 
     variety of topics, including management initiatives, the need 
     for more and better information, and reductions in FTEs. 
     After adjusting for agencies that should be removed from 
     the FTE base, the Authority FTE recommendations call for 
     reductions of 5,239 FTEs from the original fiscal year 
     1996 budget, which will result in 2,164 fewer FTEs than 
     were on-board in June 1995. A complete discussion of the 
     Authority's recommendations is included later in this 
     report.
       In addition to the Authority's recommendations on the 
     transition budget, this report contains, a description of the 
     two July 15 Authority recommendations that were 
     satisfactorily adopted by the District in the transition 
     budget, and a summary of the projected fiscal year 1996 
     revenues and expenditures taking into account these 
     recommendations.


                               background

       On May 8, 1995, the District of Columbia submitted a budget 
     for fiscal year 1996 to the Congress (original fiscal year 
     1996 budget). In accordance with Public Law 104-8, Section 
     208(a)(1), on July 15, 1995, the Authority made 
     recommendations on the fiscal year 1996 budget to the Mayor, 
     Council, President, and Congress (these recommendations are 
     shown as appendix I). The Council adopted a revised fiscal 
     year 1996 transition budget and on August 1, 1995, submitted 
     the budget to the Authority, President, and Congress, in 
     accordance with Public Law 104-8, Section 208(a)(2). This 
     report contains the Authority's recommendations for revisions 
     to the District's fiscal year 1996 transition budget in 
     accordance with Public Law 104-8, Section 208(a)(3).
       As stipulated in Public Law 104-8 Section 208(a)(3), the 
     Authority reviewed the District's Fiscal Year 1996 transition 
     budget to determine if it ``promotes the financial stability 
     of the District government during the fiscal year.'' Section 
     201 of Public Law 104-8 describes several standards to 
     promote financial stability including:
       The District government shall make continuous, substantial 
     progress towards equalizing the expenditures and revenues of 
     the District government;
       The District government shall provide for the orderly 
     liquidation of the cumulative fund balance deficit of the 
     District government;
       The financial plan and budget shall assure the continuing 
     long-term financial stability of the District government, as 
     indicated by factors including access to short-term and long-
     term capital markets, the efficient management of the 
     District government's workforce, and the effective provision 
     of services by the District government.
       In meeting these standards with respect to the financial 
     plan and budget, the District government shall apply sound 
     budgetary practices, including reducing costs and other 
     expenditures, improving productivity, increasing revenues, or 
     combinations of such practices.


   recommendations for revisions to the district's fiscal year 1996 
                           transition budget

       This section outlines the Authority's specific 
     recommendations for revisions to the District's Fiscal Year 
     1996 transition budget. There are three overall categories of 
     recommendations: (1) adjustments and reductions in full-time 
     equivalent personnel (FTEs), (2) recommendations on 
     management initiatives, the financial plan, and total 
     expenditures, and (3) recommendations for more information.
     Adjustments and reductions in FTE's
       Personnel is a large component of District spending. The 
     District has 1 employee for every 13 residents. The Rivlin 
     Commission Report \1\ in 1990 noted that, even accounting for 
     state and county services, the District has 40 percent more 
     staff per 10,000 population (or nearly 15,000 more staff) 
     than the average for 12 similar cities. This report 
     recommended staff reductions. Personnel management is seen as 
     a major challenge and key to the financial recovery effort. 
     District personnel positions are financed by both 
     appropriated and non-appropriated funds. The District reports 
     personnel data in a variety of ways, including actual FTEs, 
     approved FTEs, the number of personnel receiving paychecks, 
     and full-time on-board staff. An FTE is used to measure the 
     number of equivalent positions and takes into account how 
     many hours are actually being worked. For example, two 
     employees working half-time would be counted as one FTE. \2\
     \1\ ``Financing the Nation's Capital: The Report of the 
     Commission on Budget and Financial Priorities of the District 
     of Columbia,'' November 1990.
     \2\ OMB circular A-11 defines FTE employment as the total 
     number of regular hours, not including overtime and holiday 
     hours worked by employees, divided by the number of 
     compensable hours applicable to each fiscal year (260 days or 
     2,080 hours in fiscal year 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Authority is making a series of FTE recommendations to: 
     (1) remove agencies from the District's FTE base; (2) make 
     adjustments for FTEs related to contracting out; (3) reduce 
     FTEs in agencies in the Government Direction and Support and 
     Public Education appropriation titles; and (4) request the 
     Council to allocate another 704 FTE reductions. The Authority 
     targeted these reductions to administrative and mid-level 
     management positions, and not to front-line workers who 
     actually deliver the services to District residents. For 
     example, the Authority called for reductions in the District 
     of Columbia Public Schools to be targeted to non-teaching 
     positions (see page 9 for definition of non-teaching 
     positions) that do not directly serve students. In addition, 
     several citizens at public meetings cautioned the Authority 
     against eliminating the jobs of front-line workers, who 
     provide direct-services to the public.
       The following recommendations result in a new FTE ceiling 
     for the District of 35,771. This FTE ceiling is to be reached 
     by September 30, 1996, the end of fiscal year 1996. The 
     Authority will ask the District to develop a plan for 
     reaching these FTE targets and monitor progress toward 
     executing this plan throughout fiscal year 1996. This plan 
     needs to be developed quickly and should become a integral 
     part of the District's financial plan.
       The net result of the FTE reductions are outlined in the 
     following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Adjusted         Adjusted       Adjusted on        Authority      Authority less    Authority less    Authority less 
     Appropriation title       original budget      council      board June 1995   recommendation        council          original          on board    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Direction.........            1,868            1,625            1,672            1,465              (160)             (403)             (207)
Economic Development.........            1,996            1,800            1,779            1,800                 0              (196)               21 
Public Safety and Justice....           11,867           11,558           11,536           11,558                 0              (309)               22 
Public Education.............           12,588           12,141           12,729           11,672              (469)             (916)           (1,057)
Health and Human Services....            8,154            6,757            7,127            6,757                 0            (1,397)             (370)
Public Works.................            2,207            1,914            1,636            1,914                 0              (293)              278 
Enterprise...................            2,330            1,309            1,456            1,309                 0            (1,021)             (147)
FTE to be allocated..........  ...............  ...............  ...............             (704)             (704)             (704)             (704)
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total..................           41,010           37,104           37,935           35,771            (1,333)           (5,239)           (2,164)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The specific FTE recommendations follow.
       Recommendation 1A: Reduce the original budget base for FTEs 
     (2,926) related to the Department of Public and Assisted 
     Housing, Public Defender Service, Washington Aqueduct, and 
     D.C. General Hospital. Adjust the 5,600 required reduction by 
     the same proportion.
       The Department of Public and Assisted Housing, Public 
     Defender Service, Washington Aqueduct, and D.C. General 
     Hospital were included in the original budget from which the 
     Authority determined its 5,600 reduction. The Authority 
     recommends they not be counted in the FTE calculations for 
     the following reasons:
       (1) The Department of Public and Assisted Housing is under 
     the direction of a court-appointed receiver and is not 
     presently directly controlled by the District of Columbia 
     government.
       (2) The Public Defender Service and Washington Aqueduct 
     employees are not District of Columbia employees.
       (3) The District has proposed putting the District of 
     Columbia General Hospital under the control of a Public 
     Benefits Corporation. If this is done, the employees should 
     not be 

[[Page H 11634]]

     counted in the District's FTE budget. Further discussion of 
     D.C. General Hospital is included under Recommendation 1B.
       These agencies comprised 2,926 FTEs out of the total of 
     45,378 FTEs in the original fiscal year 1996 budget. When 
     these agency FTEs are removed from the base the total 
     remaining is 42,452 FTEs. The Authority originally 
     recommended 5,600 reductions from the fiscal year 1996 
     budget. The Authority recommends reducing this number in the 
     same proportion as the removed agencies' FTEs (2,926) or 
     6.45%. Thus, the 5,600 FTE reduction should be reduced by 
     6.45% for an adjusted total FTE reduction of 5,239. The new 
     reduction target is a figure that is comparable to the 
     original 5,600 reduction.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Description                                  FTEs 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total original fiscal year 1996 budget................  .......   45,378
Agencies eliminated from calculation:                                   
  Public and Assisted Housing (other than local)......      913  .......
  Public Defender Service.............................      139  .......
  Aqueduct............................................      294  .......
  D.C. General Hospital \1\...........................    1,580    2,926
                                                       -----------------
      Revised original fiscal year 1996 total.........  .......   42,452
                                                       =================
Authority recommended reduction.......................    5,600  .......
Proportion of eliminated agencies in original FTE                       
 budget (2,926/45,378=6.45%)..........................      361  .......
                                                       -----------------
Authority recommended revised reduction...............    5,239  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This represents the number of D.C. General employees on-board as of 
  August 1995. The Authority used this number rather than the original  
  fiscal year 1996 budget of 1,760 FTEs. The Authority did this to give 
  the District credit for the reductions already achieved at D.C.       
  General.                                                              

       Recommendation 1B: Transfer D.C. General Hospital to a 
     Public Benefits Corporation and continue to address the issue 
     of restructuring the manner in which health care is provided. 
     As noted in recommendation 1A, remove D.C. General from the 
     District's FTE calculations. D.C. General Hospital budget 
     should reflect no more than 1,580 FTEs (the current on-board 
     staff).
       The District of Columbia Hospital is a significant cost 
     component of District expenditures. Funding for the 
     hospital's operations comes largely from three sources: net 
     patient service revenue, D.C. government appropriations, and 
     a series of loans from the D.C. government. The table below 
     outlines D.C. General funding sources for the last several 
     years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               D.C.             
                                                                    Patient       D.C.        other             
                               Year                                 revenue   appropriated  subsidies    Total  
                                                                     (net)       subsidy    ``loans''           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990.............................................................       46.9         50.0         9.7      106.6
1991.............................................................       70.7         59.5        18.3      148.5
1992.............................................................       79.2         69.0        12.9      161.1
1993.............................................................       76.8         58.8        17.1      152.7
1994.............................................................       74.8         46.7        27.0      148.5
1995 \1\.........................................................       87.4         56.7         8.9      153.0
1996 \1\.........................................................       58.3         56.7           0      115.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Note.--Fiscal years 1995 and 1996 are budgeted information.                                                  

       The District has proposed to turn over control of the 
     Hospital to a Public Benefits Corporation (PBC) and to study 
     the delivery of health care to the citizens of the District. 
     The Authority supports the District's proposal. However, the 
     Authority and the District need much more information about 
     the new entity created, the impact of the shift on employee 
     rights, and other factors. A critical part of the proposal to 
     turn over the hospital to a Public Benefits Corporation is 
     the need to study the entire District of Columbia health care 
     delivery system. District officials maintain that a PBC will 
     allow the hospital to operate independently of District 
     procurement and personnel restrictions, which in their 
     opinion have hampered its efficiency. The decision to turn 
     over control of the hospital to the PBC was also supported by 
     the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Health Care Reform 
     Implementation. The Authority points out that even with these 
     changes, the District is expected to continue to pay a 
     substantial subsidy to the hospital whether it is 
     directly operated by the District or operated by the 
     Public Benefits Corporation. Holding down costs, including 
     FTEs, will help to reduce this subsidy.
       The Authority believes the Hospital has made progress to 
     reduce staff to its current FTE level of 1,580. The Authority 
     recommends that the hospital not exceed 1,580 FTEs during 
     fiscal year 1996. The Authority members pointed out that this 
     recommendation calls for no further reductions from the June 
     1995 on-board strength, and emphasized the importance of D.C. 
     General to the safety net for those District residents who 
     are most vulnerable. As noted in recommendation 1A, the 
     Authority is recommending removing 1,580 FTEs from the 
     District's FTE base. By using this on-board strength rather 
     than the 1,760 FTEs in the budget, the Authority acknowledges 
     the reductions already achieved.
       Recommendation 1C: Agency FTE budgets are reduced by the 
     total amount of the contracting out initiatives (1,519 FTEs); 
     however only five percent (77 FTEs) of the privatization 
     initiatives should be counted toward the recommended 5,239 
     FTE reductions.
       The Council proposed a variety of contracting out 
     initiatives in several District agencies and said these 
     initiatives involved functions that totaled 1,519 FTEs. The 
     Council also counted all of the these FTEs toward the 
     recommended FTE reductions. Contracting out city services can 
     have substantial benefits by reducing cost and increasing 
     efficiencies and these efforts are encouraged.
       During discussions with the Authority, District officials 
     said they expected that the efforts are encouraged.
       During discussions with the Authority, District officials 
     said they expected that the efforts would save at least five 
     percent of the District's total cost of the providing these 
     services. The Authority therefore recommends that five 
     percent of the FTE's involved in these contracting out 
     proposals be counted toward FTE reductions. All of the 1,519 
     FTEs are removed from the agency budgets. The table below 
     outlines the contracting out proposals and the savings as a 
     function of FTEs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Amount 
                                                                counted 
                Agency and program               Contracting    toward  
                                                  out FTE's   reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police: Medical services.......................          32            2
Corrections: Medical services, inmate food                              
 services, other...............................         352           18
Schools: Food services and security............         892           45
Human services: Health services, dental                                 
 services, medical affairs.....................         201           10
Public Works: Transportation Systems                                    
 Administration................................          42            2
                                                ------------------------
      Total....................................       1,519           77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The Authority is not encouraging contracting out for every 
     service in all parts of the District government, only in 
     those instances where savings and administrative or 
     management efficiencies could be achieved, and the quality of 
     services can be improved. The Authority will monitor all 
     contracts negotiated for these services.
       The FTE adjustments to the base, the Authority recommended 
     reductions discussed in Recommendation 1A, and the 
     adjustments for the contracting out initiatives recommended, 
     result in a revised FTE ceiling for District agencies of 
     35,771. This calculation is shown in the following table.

        Description                                               FTE's
Total original fiscal year 1996 budget...........................45,378
Agencies eliminated from calculation............................(2,926)
                                                             __________

        Revised original fiscal year 1996 total..................42,452
Authority revised reduction.....................................(5,239)
Contracting out reductions......................................(1,519)
Credit for contracting out.......................................... 77
                                                             __________

        Authority recommended revised fiscal year 1996 ceiling...35,771
       Recommendation 1D: The District should reduce 160 FTEs from 
     the Government Direction and Support of the Council's revised 
     fiscal year 1996 budget.
       As a part of the narrative that accompanied the Authority's 
     July 15, 1995, recommendation to reduce 5,600 FTEs from the 
     Fiscal Year 1996 budget, the Authority noted that ``the 
     District should focus on overhead positions and not 
     exclusively on positions that provide a direct service to the 
     public.'' Numerous citizens at the August 12, 1995, public 
     hearing said that reductions in positions that provide 
     services to the public will result in a decline in service. 
     The Authority is stressing that the recommended 160 
     reductions not occur in those types of positions. The 
     Government Direction and Support function contains a variety 
     of administrative and overhead positions. The Authority 
     believes that 160 (10%) additional FTE reductions should be 
     made from these agencies.
       Recommendation 1E: The District should set the level of 
     FTEs for the D.C. Public Schools at 10,167, which is the 
     Mayor's revised budget adjusted for the Council's contracting 
     out initiatives.
       The Council's revised budget for the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools reduced 190 FTEs from the original fiscal year 
     1996 budget, not including 892 positions through contracting 
     out as was discussed in recommendation 1B. The Mayor 
     recommended 500 reductions from the original fiscal year 1996 
     budget. The Authority accepts the Mayor's FTE reduction 
     amount. The Council had identified specific positions that 
     should be cut. The Authority believes that the specific 
     reductions should be determined by the Superintendent, but 
     that the reductions should be from administrative, non-
     teaching positions. The Authority defined non-teaching 
     positions as those that do not directly impact students. 
     Positions that directly affect students include, but are not 
     limited to, teachers, counselors, librarians, and principals.
       The Authority also supports contracting out initiatives 
     involving food services and security. The table below 
     summarizes the Public Schools recommended reductions.


        Description                                               FTE's
Original fiscal year 1996 budget.................................11,559
Cuts made by mayor................................................(500)
Mayor's revised budget...........................................11,059
Council recommended contracting out of food service and security..(892)
Authority recommended FTE's......................................10,167

       The Authority also expressed interest in the number of 
     school buildings and noted that information provided by the 
     Superintendent indicated a substantial number of schools were 
     significantly under capacity. The Schools currently have a 
     study underway to assess school facilities for capital needs, 
     as well as capacity. The Authority will review this study and 
     other information to assist the school's in determining the 
     extent to which District schools can be consolidated.
       Recommendation 1F: The District should set the level of 
     FTEs for the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) at 
     1,079 FTEs, which is the Mayor's budget less 48 FTEs.

[[Page H 11635]]

       The Council recommended that UDC reduce 188 FTEs from the 
     original fiscal year 1996 budget to 1,238 FTEs. The Mayor 
     recommended that UDC reduce 299 FTEs to 1,127 FTEs. The 
     District said that, as of June 1995, UDC had 1,079 FTEs on-
     board. District officials informed the Authority that the 
     Mayor's recommendation of 1,127 was calculated by adding the 
     on-board UDC strength to the 48 positions transferred from 
     the Law School. The closing of the District of Columbia Law 
     School has been discussed for years. The Rivlin Commission 
     recommended closing the Law School in its November 1990 
     report. The Authority members are uncertain regarding the 
     need for a District government supported law school. However, 
     the Authority believes that the Law School's future should be 
     determined as a part of a broader assessment of all offerings 
     at UDC, both undergraduate and graduate. The Authority 
     recommends accepting the Mayor's revised budget, but reducing 
     it by an addition 48 FTEs.
       Recommendation 1G: The District should transfer to the 
     Inspector General auditor FTEs currently allocated in other 
     agencies.
       Public Law 104-8 redefined an Inspector General for the 
     District of Columbia who was given more powers and 
     independence to review District programs for fraud, waste, 
     and abuse and other purposes. Since fiscal year 1994, the 
     District has reduced staff in the current Inspector General's 
     staff by more than half and proposed additional reductions in 
     Fiscal Year 1996. The Authority believes the Inspector 
     General will need a substantial increase in resources. One of 
     the Authority's July 15 recommendations included a request 
     for information on the number of auditors in all District 
     agencies. (See Appendix 1 Recommendation 12.) The District in 
     its response identified 18 auditor positions: Police (8 
     FTE's), Board of Education (3 FTE's), D.C. General (1 FTE), 
     and Department of Public Works (6 FTE's). These positions 
     should be transferred to the Inspector General's Office. The 
     District also needs to continue the process of identifying 
     all auditor positions in its agencies, and these additional 
     positions should also be transferred to the Inspector 
     General's office. The Authority notes that this will result 
     in no net change in FTEs District-wide.
       In transferring the auditor positions to the Inspector 
     General, the IG needs to assess the background and 
     qualifications of each individual currently filling the 
     positions to determine if the person has the appropriate 
     qualifications and background for the job. Centralizing the 
     auditors under the Inspector General will provide the new 
     Inspector General an increased staff and the flexibility to 
     focus the resources on the priority issues requiring audit 
     within the District government. This initial centralizing 
     of all auditor positions under the Inspector General 
     should not be viewed as a limitation on the new Inspector 
     General to organize the audit function as deemed necessary 
     and appropriate to most efficiently utilize those 
     resources.
       Recommendation 1H: The District should allocate the 
     reduction of an additional 704 FTEs before the congressional 
     mark-up of the District's fiscal year 1996 budget. The 
     Authority will make these allocations if this information is 
     not provided timely.
       Implementation of recommendations 1A through 1G will result 
     in 4,535 reductions in FTEs from the adjusted fiscal year 
     1996 budget, 704 short of the revised target of 5,239 FTEs. 
     The Council proposed that 1,000 additional reductions could 
     be achieved by offering an extension of retirement and 
     voluntary separation incentive programs through March 1996. 
     The Council did not allocate where the net result of these 
     reductions should occur. There was some concern expressed as 
     to whether this reduction goal was achievable. The Authority 
     believes that any reductions need to be identified at least 
     at the appropriation level. Therefore, the Authority 
     recommends that the District provide information to the 
     Authority that allocates at least 704 additional FTE 
     reductions. These reductions should be focussed on management 
     positions and not front-line employees who provide services 
     to the public.
       These FTE reductions should also not take place in the 
     Metropolitan Police Department or the Department of Public 
     Works. This information should be supplied to the Authority 
     before congressional mark-up of the District's fiscal year 
     1996 budget, which is expected to begin in early September 
     1995. If the Authority does not receive the information 
     before the mark-up, the Authority will allocate the 704 
     reductions.
       Recommendation 1J: Section 601 of the Enrolled Original 
     Legislation that prevents backfilling of FTE positions 
     resulting from any incentive program should be modified.
       The Council enacted legislation that prohibits the 
     backfilling of any vacant position resulting from the 
     exercise of an early-out retirement, easy-out retirement, or 
     voluntary severance incentive program. The Mayor had proposed 
     to create a pool of 300 FTEs to be used to backfill certain 
     positions that were critical or resulted from restructuring 
     and reengineering of District functions. The Mayor noted that 
     he needed the flexibility of such a pool especially in light 
     of the proposed Council legislation. The Authority had noted 
     that the backfilling of positions should generally be 
     discouraged; however the Authority does not believe that the 
     complete elimination of such backfilling is wise due to the 
     possibility that positions critical to providing services to 
     residents may go unfilled. The Authority recommends 
     elimination of section 601 and believes that the backfilling 
     of any position should follow the procedure outlined in 
     Section 602 of the Enrolled Original legislation. This 
     provision allows the City Administrator to certify that the 
     position is critical before it can be backfilled. The 
     backfilling of positions should be within the FTE limit set 
     in the appropriation title line item.


  Recommendations on Management Initiatives, the Financial Plan, and 
                           Total Expenditures

       Recommendation 2: Eliminate $70 million in reductions from 
     the budget for debt restructuring. Also, make sure that cost 
     savings from government reengineering, alternative service 
     delivery, and recisions of board and commission members 
     stipends are achieved.
       The Authority initially recommended to the Council that 
     plans and milestones for achieving $70 million of management 
     initiatives be provided to document the actions and time 
     frames for implementing actions to reduce costs and save 
     funds. See Appendix 1 Recommendation 2. The revised fiscal 
     year 1996 budget from the Council includes $70 million in 
     savings attributable to debt restructuring, $16 million in 
     cost savings from government reengineering and alternative 
     service delivery, and $500,000 in cost reductions from board 
     and commission recisions.
       The District indicates that it will pursue a debt 
     restructuring in fiscal year 1996 to achieve a projected debt 
     service reduction of $70 million. The Mayor has submitted 
     legislation to the Council which would amend the General 
     Obligation Bond Act of 1994 to authorize a negotiated sale of 
     certain general obligation bonds issued by the District. 
     However, specific plans and milestones to accomplish the 
     restructuring are still being discussed. In addition, the 
     District's financial condition makes it uncertain whether 
     such a restructuring is achievable. If these savings are 
     achieved, they should be used to reduce the District's 
     accumulated deficit or held in contingencies. The use of any 
     such contingency should be approved by the Authority.
       The District anticipates that it will save $16 million in 
     fiscal year 1996 through restructuring, privatization 
     initiatives, and procurement reform. The projected target 
     involves agencies and functions across the government. 
     However, the description of the actions to be taken generally 
     describes the program and its scope, but does not provide 
     specific plans with steps to be taken to implement the 
     actions and milestones for accomplishing the steps.
       The budget includes cost reductions of $500,000 to be 
     achieved by eliminating stipends for all board and commission 
     members except those who are full-time and certain select 
     boards and commissions. The budget does not specify which 
     boards' and commissions' members will not be paid.
       The Authority instructs the Executive Director to work with 
     the District to develop specific plans and milestones for 
     management actions intended to reduce costs. Further, the 
     Authority directs the Authority staff to monitor District 
     initiatives to assure that progress is made in implementing 
     the initiatives.
       Recommendation 3: The authority's Executive Director will 
     work with the City Administrator's staff and contractors 
     hired by the city to develop the financial plan and budget in 
     accordance with the Authority's guidance that is under 
     development.
       The City Administrator's office identified ``an increase of 
     $2 million to provide resources to assist the government in 
     responding to the Financial Control Board's directives.'' 
     More specifically, according to District officials these 
     funds are expected to be used to contract with public finance 
     specialists to develop the following:
       --an improved budget process and procedures,
       --the financial plan and budget for fiscal year 1996,
       --improved cash flow forecasting models,
       --performance measurement models and tracking system, and
       --re-engineering the procurement process.
       The contract related to the first three items should be 
     transferred to the new Chief Financial Officer (CFO) when 
     appointed and the performance measurement contract should be 
     a joint contract in which both the City Administrator and CFO 
     participate.
       Guidance for the financial plan and budget are currently 
     being developed by the Authority staff and includes the 
     concepts originally recommended by the Authority on July 15 
     (See Appendix 1) as well as the recommendations included in 
     this report. The overall objective is to develop a 
     comprehensive, realistic financial plan that is actually a 
     management plan with financial effects. Accordingly, the plan 
     needs to include not only the general operations, but also 
     needs to incorporate the capital plan and plans for the 
     enterprise funds and the new public benefits corporation.
       Recommendation 4: Based on the current information, the 
     total expenditures for fiscal year 1996 should be $5.016 
     billion.
       The District's gross budget estimate for fiscal year 1996 
     includes all funds and revenue sources as recommended by the 
     Authority on July 15 (see Appendix 1 Recommendation 5). The 
     adjustments to the Council's proposed budget are for 
     additional personnel reductions and debt restructuring. 
     Appendix 1 provides a summary of the District's budget with 
     the Authority's adjustments.

[[Page H 11636]]

       The personnel savings of $39.5 million were estimated based 
     on $32,000 for a vacant position and $16,000 for a filled 
     position. Additional adjustments may be necessary related to 
     the following:
       --additional information is provided concerning the extent 
     to which intra-District funds are double counted in the 
     budget estimates;
       --the personnel savings do not include any savings that may 
     be realized from federal grants and intra-District FTE's; and
       --management initiatives are implemented and savings 
     result.
       The Authority is even more concerned about delivery of 
     services by the District. Many of the issues and concerns 
     presented by groups and individuals during the public meeting 
     addressed specific service problems within the District. 
     These concerns and problems are related to the fiscal crisis, 
     but also are caused by archaic procedures, lack of equipment 
     because repairs are needed, and insufficient nonpersonal 
     services funds to purchase parts and supplies. The Authority 
     believes that implementation of the performance measurement 
     recommendation discussed later in this report will help 
     address this concern.
       The Authority instructs the Executive Director to work with 
     the District to (1) analyze the intra-District funds to 
     identify any double counting in the budget estimates and (2) 
     identify any savings that may be realized from FTE reductions 
     in federal grants and intra-District budget estimates. Before 
     mark-up of the appropriation, the total budget of the 
     District recommended by the Authority will be adjusted for 
     the results of this review.


                      information recommendations

       The Authority made a number of recommendations requesting 
     information that should be included with the budget. The 
     District provided a substantial amount of information in 
     response to these recommendations, but much more is needed. 
     The Authority expects that much of this information should be 
     developed over the next several months. Although much of this 
     information appears to be fundamental data that should be 
     readily available, it is not necessarily easy to compile the 
     data and is even more difficult to analyze and present the 
     data in a meaningful format for higher level managers to 
     utilize. This information will not only assist the Authority 
     as it reviews the budget and financial plan, but more 
     importantly will assist District managers as they develop 
     multi-year budgets and plans and implement programs. 
     Essential to developing and maintaining this information is 
     the hiring of the CFO. The Authority will continue working 
     with the Mayor in the search for a new CFO and a new 
     Inspector General.
       Recommendation 5A: Detail all major revenue and expenditure 
     assumptions and include them in the budget documents.
       The District's budget is generally developed based upon the 
     amounts estimated in the previous year's budget rather than 
     constructed from budget assumptions. The budget is not 
     constructed from an identified or defined program need, such 
     as the number of Medicaid patients receiving inpatient care 
     multiplied by the average cost for that type of care. For the 
     most part, the budget estimates are developed as a percentage 
     increase or decrease from the previous year's budget 
     estimates, which was estimated in a similar manner. Using 
     a percentage basis to adjust budgets from one year to the 
     next is not an uncommon practice. However, the adjusted 
     amounts should still be assessed by those knowledgeable 
     about the programs and operations to determine the effect 
     on the program or service delivery or efficiencies which 
     have to be achieved to meet the budget.
       The Authority directs its staff to work with the District 
     administration and the City Council to outline and/or develop 
     the types of information needed to define revenue and 
     expenditure assumptions for future budget estimates. 
     Developing budgets based on revenue and expenditure 
     assumptions will not only provide a better basis for making 
     budget related decisions, but also will facilitate the 
     development of performance measures and will provide a basis 
     to monitor budget execution throughout each year.
       Recommendation 5B: Develop a capital plan that identifies 
     total capital needs.
       The District agrees with this recommendation as proposed in 
     Appendix 1 Recommendation 7. However, they acknowledge that a 
     current assessment of the total capital needs does not exist 
     and plan to enter into a professional services contract 
     ($1.5-2 million) to provide the technical expertise to 
     document and produce a comprehensive capital needs assessment 
     that complements a government operations master plan for the 
     District government. For Fiscal Year 1996, the District plans 
     over $369 million in capital spending in the following 
     appropriation title areas:

            Fiscal year 1996 planned gross capital spending


        Appropriation title                                    Millions
Government Direction............................................$24,954
Economic.........................................................24,250
Public Safety....................................................18,854
Public Education.................................................22,519
Health and Human Services........................................11,730
Public Works....................................................195,857
Financing and other uses/enterprise funds........................71,334
                                                             __________

      Total.....................................................369,398

       A task force has been formed to define the scope of work 
     for the contract; select the contractor and coordinate their 
     work; develop prioritization standards; and, ultimately, 
     recommend the restructuring of the capital program. The task 
     force expects to develop the Request for Proposal and select 
     a contractor by October 1995. The initial needs assessment 
     stage of this process is planned for completion to be 
     included in the Financial Plan to be submitted on February 1, 
     1996. During the first phase of the contract, an assessment 
     will be developed that details the condition of all of the 
     District's infrastructure. In this assessment the contractor 
     will categorize the needs and detail the condition within 
     each category. Phase two of the contract will have the 
     contractor assist in developing the plan including 
     identification of funding alternatives.
       The Authority instructs the Executive Director to monitor 
     and coordinate with the task force and contractor during the 
     development of the capital plan.
       Recommendation 5C: Develop a schedule that links the 
     District's current financing obligations with its long term 
     financial plan.
       The District agreed with the recommendation to include in 
     the budget estimates of short- and long-term debt as proposed 
     on July 15 as Recommendation 8 (see Appendix 1). Further 
     refining the original recommendation, a schedule needs to be 
     developed that links the District's current financing 
     obligations with its long term financial plan. The amounts 
     from expected borrowings should also be linked to the capital 
     plan so that priorities of financing are evident from the 
     financial plan. Other areas that should be considered in this 
     schedule include:
       --the impact on the revenue assumptions of segregating 
     revenue streams for borrowings related to the sports arena 
     and the convention center. In addition, the current letter of 
     credit affects the use of property taxes by requiring escrows 
     sooner than those utilized for the general obligation bonds;
       --the District's outstanding short-term Treasury borrowings 
     and the repayment of these borrowings will result in 
     decreased future revenues available for future borrowings;
       --how the District will address the cash flow shortage, 
     including how this shortfall will impact long- and short-term 
     debt; and
       --the effect of any planned refinancing on debts, including 
     impact on the cash forecasts and the budget.
       The Authority staff has asked for this information, but the 
     District does not have this type of data readily available. 
     This type of data is essential for any borrowings to occur 
     and more importantly for the District's internal management 
     of its cash and debt. The Authority instructs the Executive 
     Director to work with the District in developing and refining 
     the debt information for the budgets.
       Recommendation 5D: Develop information on the costs 
     associated with court orders.
       A substantial portion of the District's operations are 
     subject to court orders and consent decrees. In effect, these 
     judicial mandates are establishing policies and directing 
     significant segments of the District's operations and 
     programs. Considering the scope of these orders and decrees, 
     the District and the Authority need to establish an effective 
     working relationship with the courts to help the District 
     move programs out from judicial control and avoid future 
     court orders and consent decrees. Accordingly, the District 
     should assess its current programs and operations under court 
     orders and consent decrees to determine the levels of 
     compliance and relate the compliance with the available 
     resources. The District should also identify costs that it is 
     incurring that would not be incurred in the absence of the 
     court order. This information could provide a basis for 
     discussions with the appropriate court officials in resolving 
     what can be realistically accomplished in light of the 
     current financial crisis. The District should also assess the 
     vulnerability of all other District programs and operations 
     to obviate the need for future action by the courts.
       The District provided information on the various court 
     orders its operations are subject to, but the information 
     could be improved by distinguishing between the costs of the 
     programs that would be incurred if the programs were not 
     subject to a court order and the additional costs that are 
     attributable to the court orders. Refer to the Authority's 
     July 15 recommendation 9 (see Appendix 1). For example, the 
     entire budget for several agencies is included as a cost of 
     the court order, which does not recognize the fact that the 
     agency would have operated at some level without the court 
     order. The Authority instructs the Executive Director to work 
     with the District to develop and report more meaningful 
     information on the court orders' costs.
       Recommendation 5F: Include cash flow estimates for all 
     funds.
       The District agreed that cash flow estimates for all funds 
     should be developed as proposed by the Authority in Appendix 
     1 Recommendation 10 and stated that a consolidated cash flow 
     statement and a cash statement for all debt service escrow 
     accounts will be prepared once a final budget for fiscal year 
     1996 is adopted. Cash flow statements for enterprise funds 
     will be developed after decisions related to staffing 
     reductions are made in response to Authority recommendations. 
     Finally, a cash flow statement for the capital account will 
     be based on the approved capital plan for fiscal year 1996 
     and borrowing assumptions related to market access or U.S. 
     Treasury access.
       The Authority instructs the Executive Director to monitor 
     development of the various cash flow statements. 


[[Page H 11637]]

       Recommendation 5F: Include information on all active grants 
     and develop a list of grants that the District has not yet 
     applied for but for which it may be eligible. Identify the 
     grant funding that is at risk because of staff reductions.
       The District provided a list of grants and the expenditures 
     for each grant for the first three quarters of fiscal year 
     1995. However, it's not clear how this information relates to 
     the fiscal year 1996 budget as proposed on July 15 in 
     Recommendation 11 (see Appendix 1). The Authority instructs 
     the Executive Director to work with the District to develop 
     the reporting of the grant information requested.
       The District's budget overview states that ``the District 
     may lose grant funding because of the staff reductions.'' 
     However, the budget does not identify the grants where 
     funding may be ``lost''. The Authority instructs the 
     Executive Director to coordinate with the District in the 
     development of the information related to the loss of grant 
     funding due to staff reductions.
       Grant funding is an important source of financing the needs 
     of District residents, particularly in times of budget 
     crisis. It is not acceptable to have these valued resources 
     unavailable because the District lacks matching funds or has 
     not applied for the grants. Furthermore, the District also 
     needs to assure compliance with all the requirements defined 
     for the grants, particularly the audit requirements on grant 
     settlements, to maximize cost reimbursement.
       The Authority heard from several sources that the District 
     has not applied for all the grants for which it may be 
     eligible and citizens questioned how the District was using 
     federal grant money for AIDS treatment and awareness. The 
     District needs to identify all the grants for which its 
     programs and operations may be eligible and attempt to obtain 
     funding from the appropriate entities for such grants.


  JULY 15 RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 
                         1996 TRANSITION BUDGET

       The District provided responses to parts of all twelve 
     recommendations that the Authority made on July 15, 1995. 
     These recommendations are included as Appendix 1. Two of the 
     twelve recommendations that the Authority made on July 15, 
     1995 on the original fiscal year 1996 budget were 
     incorporated in the District's fiscal year 1996 transition 
     budget. These were recommendations to develop an improved 
     financial management system and a recommendation to develop 
     pilot performance management projects in the Department of 
     Public Works, the Office of Personnel, and the Office of 
     Administrative Services. These recommendations and District 
     responses are discussed below.
     Develop an improved financial management system
       The Authority recommended that the District should 
     immediately develop and implement an improved financial 
     management information system. Such a system should include 
     not only equipment and software improvements, but also 
     improved financial controls, procedures, and training of 
     financial management employees.
       Numerous internal and external studies and audits over a 
     number of years have highlighted problems with various 
     aspects of the District's financial information system. The 
     Rivlin Commission Report \3\ in November 1990 recommended a 
     comprehensive financial management improvement program, 
     including a new financial management system. Both the current 
     interim Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and previous Ceo have 
     recommended major financial management improvements, 
     including better procedures and improved training, and 
     specifically discussed developing and implementing a new 
     financial management system. The U.S. General Accounting 
     Office reported on June 21, 1995 \4\ that: The District's 
     financial information and internal controls are poor. The 
     District does not know the status of expenditures against 
     budgeted amounts, does not know how many bills it owes, is 
     allowing millions of dollars of obligations to occur without 
     required written contracts, and does not know its cash status 
     on a daily basis. Millions of dollars of bills are not 
     entered into the Financial Management System until months and 
     sometimes years after they are paid.
     \3\ Financing the Nation's Capital: The Report of the 
     Commission on Budget and Financial Priorities of the District 
     of Columbia, November 1990.
     \4\ District of Columbia: Improved Financial Information and 
     Controls Are Essential to Address the Financial Crisis, GAO/
     T-AIMD-95-176, June 21, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The District's financial management system consists of a 
     15-year old central system and at least 17 separate program 
     systems. These separate program systems are not integrated 
     with the central system. As a result, District Controller 
     officials must input to the central system thousands of 
     general journal entries that were originally entered into the 
     individual systems. For example, at the Department of Human 
     Services, benefit payments made under programs such as 
     Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, General 
     Public Assistance, and Foster Care are computed by the 
     program's own unique systems, which are not integrated with 
     the city's Financial Management System. The benefit payment 
     amounts for these programs and the associated obligations are 
     then manually recorded in the Financial Management System by 
     the D.C. Controller's Office after the payments are made. 
     This results in processing delays and a lack of timely and 
     accurate information to manage budget execution and cash 
     flow.
       The District's financial management system is not an 
     effective tool to monitor or manage activities on the agency 
     level. The District's current financial management system and 
     operations do not establish agency managers as accountable 
     for the resources at their disposal, particularly the funds 
     available to pay for the costs of their operations. The new 
     financial management system should incorporate a fund control 
     system with regulatory controls that fixes responsibility 
     with agency officials to ensure that the agency stays within 
     authorized funding limits. Agency managers would then know 
     the resources available to them to operate their programs and 
     would be responsible for operating within those funding 
     constraints.
       The Congress should continue to appropriate the District's 
     funds at the appropriation title level. The Authority would 
     then have some flexibility to reprogram funds if necessary 
     within the appropriations. The Authority instructs the 
     Executive Director to assist the Congress throughout the 
     appropriations mark up process.
       The CFO would be responsible for monitoring agency use of 
     funds and the CFO staff within each agency (the agency 
     controllers and controller staff) would serve as the agency's 
     source of data on the status of funds. Agency officials 
     should be required to consult with the agency controller as 
     to the availability of funds to cover any proposed 
     obligations before entering into the obligation. The agency 
     controller would be responsible for keeping the fund control 
     system current concerning the availability of funds and 
     reserving funds to ensure their continued availability even 
     though the obligation may not be finalized until a later 
     date. The CFO could also delegate to the agency controllers 
     the authority to certify and approve payment of all bills, 
     invoices, payrolls and other disbursements. This 
     certification and approval would also include a determination 
     of the legality and correctness of the payments. The 
     Authority also plans to monitor the District's spending 
     throughout the fiscal year and will closely review the 
     contracts subject to Authority approval against the 
     transition budget initially and the fiscal year 1996 budget 
     and financial plan when it has been developed. The Authority 
     will also review the financial impact of the Council's 
     legislation in context with the budgets and financial plans.
       Further, the CFO should develop guidelines related to 
     administrative discipline and/or penalties for violations and 
     fund limitations. The Inspector General should be responsible 
     for investigating any such violations and reporting on the 
     violations to the CFO who would then recommend the 
     appropriate discipline/penalty to the Mayor for imposition. 
     The reports, including a description of the resulting 
     discipline/penalty, should also be forwarded to the 
     congressional authorization and appropriation committees.
       The District needs to immediately purchase and implement a 
     financial management system. But more importantly, District 
     managers cannot effectively manage programs without 
     drastically improved real-time financial information. This 
     system needs to consider the needs of all users and 
     appropriate interface with other information systems. The 
     District should consult with other jurisdictions that have 
     implemented new financial management systems. In order to 
     reduce cost and shorten the time needed to implement a 
     system, off-the-shelf systems should be considered. The 
     District should immediately make funds available for this 
     system, which should be implemented no later than the end of 
     fiscal year 1996.
       The District agreed with this recommendation and provided 
     $28 million, an increase of $21 million from the original 
     fiscal year 1996 budget, to replace the existing financial 
     management system with technology that will address its 
     current financial and informational management needs. System 
     development and implementation will occur in the following 
     phases:
       During Phase 1 (fourth quarter of fiscal year 1995), the 
     District will develop and prepare a Request for Proposal to 
     contract for identification of the processes that need to be 
     automated and interfaces with other existing District 
     systems.
       Phase 2 (first and second quarters of fiscal year 1996) 
     will assess the existing financial management system 
     environment, including the purpose and functions, staff, 
     process and procedures, and technology as well as further 
     refinement of the technology needs and procurement of the 
     needs.
       Phase 3 (third and fourth quarters of fiscal year 1996) 
     will involve procurement of the necessary hardware and 
     installation of the software for the new system. During this 
     phase, processes will be redesigned and staff qualifications 
     and the organizational structure will be addressed.
       Phase 4 (fourth quarter of fiscal year 1996 and first 
     quarter of fiscal year 1997) will be data conversion, system 
     testing, and training.
       Phase 5 (first quarter of fiscal year 1997) will be full 
     on-line implementation.
       The Executive Director will work with the District and its 
     contractors in monitoring the development and implementation 
     of the new financial management system and related procedures 
     with the goal of an earlier implementation, if possible.
     
[[Page H 11638]]

     Implement pilot performance management projects
       The District agreed with the Authority's recommendation to 
     implement pilot performance management/results-oriented 
     programs in the Department of Public Works, the Department of 
     Administrative Services, and the Office of Personnel. These 
     pilots should incorporate business process re-engineering and 
     quality management principles.
       The District of Columbia is not only facing a financial 
     crisis, it is facing a performance delivery crisis. All 
     citizens of the District want quality services. The Authority 
     has already received numerous comments about the poor quality 
     of service provided by District agencies. For example, a 
     constant comment is that citizens simply want their trash 
     picked up. These citizens want and deserve an effective and 
     efficient District Government. The district has many 
     qualified employees who are working hard every day to deliver 
     services to District residents. However, many of the 
     processes for carrying out these programs are ineffective and 
     service delivery suffers no matter how hard employees work.
       Other jurisdictions have implemented effective results-
     oriented customer service approaches to many of their 
     functions. Of particular note are the states of Florida, 
     Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia, and 
     the cities of Sunnyvale, California and Portland, Oregon. 
     Last December the U.S. General Accounting Office issued a 
     report on the experiences of these states.\5\ The experiences 
     of these jurisdictions could help the District develop its 
     pilot programs. The approach used by these entities focuses 
     on program outcomes as opposed to only inputs and outputs. 
     These entities have found that aligning departments and 
     employees around results can yield such benefits as: improved 
     service to citizens, improved productivity and elimination of 
     extraneous programs, and better information for making budget 
     and program decisions.
     \5\ Managing for Results: State Experiences Provide Insights 
     for Federal Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22, December 21, 
     1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       A key first step in implementing these pilots is developing 
     information on: (1) specific programs and their cost, (2) all 
     outputs for the selected programs, (3) the impact (outcomes 
     expected) and methodology for achievement, (4) all 
     constituents impacted and how their satisfaction will be 
     measured, (5) benchmarks for programs using other 
     jurisdictions' experiences and results, and (6) spending and 
     performance targets to hold managers accountable. Training 
     programs to bring worker skills in line with those needed for 
     the new processes should be an integral part of the 
     implementation plan.
       A critical part of this process includes involving the 
     workers, who are carrying out these tasks every day, in the 
     development of innovative solutions. Many of the best ideas 
     for improving the process come from the people who do the 
     job. We want to openly solicit any and all ideas relating to 
     District operations and suggestions to improve delivery of 
     services.
       The District responded that several initiatives are already 
     underway in the three agencies that incorporate business 
     process reengineering and quality management concepts. The 
     transition budget includes an additional $2 million to split 
     among the three agencies to implement these initiatives. The 
     initiatives underway include: at the Department of Public 
     Works, household trash collection, the recycling program, and 
     a fleet management program; at the Office of Personnel, an 
     effort to re-engineer the District's entire personnel system, 
     including the planned identification of legislative changes 
     needed to the Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978; and 
     at the Department of Administrative Services, the development 
     of the Excellence in Procurement Task Force.
       The Authority will work with the District on these and 
     other projects and identify individuals or organizations that 
     can assist in the development of the pilots. The Authority 
     members have noted that many private and public organizations 
     in the Washington Metropolitan area have expertise in 
     results-oriented management and they may be willing to assist 
     the District.


summary of revised fiscal year 1996 projected revenues and expenditures

       The District's fiscal year 1996 estimates for revenues are 
     $4.979 billion. These estimates are consistent with prior 
     years' actual revenues. Based on the Authority's recommended 
     revisions to the transition budget, the District's 
     expenditures are estimated to total $5.016 billion. Thus the 
     results of operations is projected to show a deficit of $37 
     million.
       These estimates are based on the City Council's budget is 
     adjusted for Authority recommendations. Additional analysis 
     will need to be performed as the District develops 
     assumptions for its expenditures. In addition, data is needed 
     from the District regarding the intra-District operations. 
     These estimates may also require adjustment based upon the 
     District's success with its management initiatives and debt 
     restructuring.
       The table on the next page summarizes the fiscal year 1996 
     expenditures for the District.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Original adjusted                                            Authority less      Authority less  
                 Appropriation title                        budget         Adjusted council        Authority            council            original     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue:                                                                                                                                                
    Taxes...........................................          2,449,855           2,449,855           2,449,855                   0                   0 
    Other local sources.............................            271,992             271,992             271,992                   0                   0 
    Federal payment.................................            660,000             660,000             660,000                   0                   0 
    Grants..........................................            851,532             851,532             851,532                   0                   0 
    Enterprise......................................            505,113             505,113             505,113                   0                   0 
    Intra District and private......................            240,068             240,068             240,068                   0                   0 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total revenue.................................          4,978,560           4,978,560           4,978,560                   0                   0 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
Expenditures:                                                                                                                                           
    Governament direction...........................            124,122             150,721             149,793                (928)             25,671 
    Economic........................................            144,149             142,661             141,013              (1,648)             (3,136)
    Public safety...................................            958,955             952,971             954,331               1,360              (4,624)
    Public education................................            802,951             799,367             789,015             (10,352)            (13,936)
    Health and human services.......................          1,872,614           1,859,622           1,850,422              (9,200)            (22,192)
    Public works....................................            297,315             297,534             297,326                (208)                (11)
    Enterprise......................................            505,123             508,623             501,338              (7,305)             (3,785)
    To be allocated.................................                  0                   0             (11,248)            (11,248)            (11,248)
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Net effect of FTE changes.....................          4,705,229           4,711,519           4,671,990             (39,529)            (33,239)
    Financing and other uses........................            280,654             273,717             343,717              70,000              63,063 
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total expenditures............................          4,985,883           4,985,236           5,015,707              30,471              29,824 
                                                     ===================================================================================================
      Deficit.......................................             (7,323)             (6,676)            (37,147)  ..................  ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Office of Management and Budget,

                                 Washington, DC, October 30, 1995.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)


      H.R. 2546--District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY 1996

       (Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Walsh (R), New York)
       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on H.R. 2546, the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Bill, FY 1996, as reported by the House 
     Appropriations Committee.
       The Administration strongly objects to the $256 million 
     reduction that the Committee would require the District to 
     take in FY 1996 from the level estimated by the Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (the 
     Authority) based on deliberations with the Mayor and District 
     Council in September. A reduction of this magnitude would 
     most likely result in substantial interruptions in program 
     operations and service delivery. The Authority was 
     established in April to assist the District in balancing its 
     budget and improving its management structure over time. 
     Working with the District, the Authority is committed to 
     bringing the District's budget into balance, but within a 
     reasonable timeframe of two to three years. It would be 
     inappropriate for Congress to override the considered 
     judgment of the Authority on the District's budget, a 
     responsibility that the Congress gave to the Authority in 
     April.
       The Administration strongly opposes the abortion language 
     of the bill, which would alter current law by prohibiting the 
     use of both Federal and District funds to pay for abortions 
     except in those cases where the life of the mother is 
     endangered or in situations of rape or incest. The 
     Administration objects to the prohibition on the use of local 
     funds as an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the 
     District. In addition, the Committee bill would prohibit any 
     abortions from being performed by ``any facility owned or 
     operated'' by the District, except in cases where the life of 
     the mother is endangered ``or in 

[[Page H 11639]]

     cases of forcible rape reported within 30 days to a law 
     enforcement agency, or cases of incest reported to a law 
     enforcement agency or child abuse agency prior to the 
     performance of the abortion.'' The Administration objects to 
     this provision because it would prevent women who need legal 
     abortion services from exercising that choice at a hospital 
     or clinic owned or operated by the District, even if they 
     were using their own funds. Furthermore, the Administration 
     objects to the language that purports to require women who 
     are victims of rape to prove that the crime was ``forcible'' 
     and the language adding reporting requirements both for rape 
     and for children who are victims of incest.
       These provisions are all designed to preclude or discourage 
     women who need legal abortions from obtaining them. For all 
     of the reasons cited above, if the bill were presented to the 
     President as reported by the Committee, the President's 
     senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.
       Additionally, the Administration has concerns regarding the 
     request that the Authority review 28 amendments, some of 
     which were originally introduced in the Committee's first 
     mark-up on September 19, 1995. First, the amendments infringe 
     on Home Rule and represent congressional micromanagement of 
     the District government. Many of the proposed amendments 
     involve issues that the Mayor and the City Council should 
     work together to resolve or study, such as the effect of the 
     Displaced Workers Protection Act on the District government 
     or the economic impact of rent control and the feasibility of 
     decontrolling units. The Authority was specifically mandated 
     to assist in District budgetary and management reform. The 
     Authority's role should not involve the review of policy 
     issues unrelated to improving the District's financial 
     condition.
       The Administration supports the Committee's action to 
     approve $28 million for a new financial management system for 
     the District of Columbia. The District should immediately 
     develop and implement an improved financial management 
     information system. The District's current financial 
     information and internal controls are weak, making it 
     difficult for city officials and managers to track 
     expenditures and to know how much is owed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to congratulate the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] for all of his hard work. This has 
been an extraordinarily difficult bill. But the gentleman and the 
staff, both the majority and the minority, have worked diligently to 
bring this bill to the floor today. They are to be commended for their 
efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, this has not been an easy course, but it is my hope the 
majority of the Members will vote for this bill, because I think this 
is the best bill we are going to get, both in terms of the needs of the 
American people and the needs of the District of Columbia.
  I want to congratulate and thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon], the ranking minority Member, for his cooperation, as well as 
thanking the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. 
They may not support the bill at this point, we regret that fact, but 
at least they worked well with us to get us to this point, and we 
appreciate their cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I will disagree though with what has just been said, 
because this is a fiscally responsible bill. It is well within the 
targets set by the budget resolution passed in this House only a few 
days ago, and in fact it cuts $84 million from the District's budget 
under what was appropriated last year. We have heard a lot of talk 
about the fact that we are $256 million below what the control board 
wants. Sure, that is their wish-list. If everything were the same, they 
would have asked for $256 million more than this bill appropriates. 
Actually, this bill still appropriates $84 million less than what was 
appropriated last year. That is pretty close to even, when you are 
talking about a $5 billion bill. There is really very little 
difference.
  Under the provision of this bill, no Federal or local funds can be 
used for the city-approved Domestic Partners Program. This language is 
identical to current law. It existed last year. This bill is designed 
to send a strong message that the mismanagement, the acknowledged 
mismanagement of District finances, cannot and will not be tolerated.
  But its mission is not to leave the city in dire straits. Five 
billion dollars is not ``in dire straits,'' as some D.C. officials have 
suggested. The fact of the matter is, there are only 570,000 residents 
in the District of Columbia. The amount we provided averages out 
to $9,000 per resident. That is a higher per capita investment than 
almost any other city. In fact, probably any other city that I know of, 
but certainly most other cities in America. It is a considerable 
investment. Still we see that the services are not adequate and that 
there has been mismanagement and waste and inefficiency.

  So it seems to me we are not being overly restrictive. In fact, I 
believe the city officials should embrace this bill, because almost all 
the authorization language which was in the bill at the outset and 
which was heavily complained about by the delegate and others has been 
stripped. Most of that authorization language has been stripped out in 
deference to home rule.
  As a matter of fact, I might add, it was the mayor's own transition 
team that recommended in November of 1994 that the District ``Implement 
a budget plan to cut expenditures in the magnitude of $431 million and 
to generate additional cash of $100 million to solve the cash crisis.'' 
The team put forth a plan to do this. Yet nothing has been done by the 
District Government to achieve the savings pointed out by both them, 
the transition team, and the Rivlin Commission, which was headed by 
none other than the current director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, Alice Rivlin.
  The Rivlin Commission report goes on to say that ``The high cost of 
the District's government is the logical outcome of a long series of 
events and decisions. Although steps have been taken to reverse the 
process, they haven't been enough.'' That is Alice Rivlin.
  In this bill we have honored the Control Board's request for a $28 
million new financial management system, with $2 million immediately 
available for a needs analysis and investment assessment report. We 
believe the initiative will help the D.C. Government get its finances 
back on track.
  The District needs to understand that the American people are serious 
about the need for structural reforms of the District's finances. We 
have invested the Control Board with tremendous power. We have given 
them enough money to manage and to begin the fiscal reforms that we 
seek from every agency and every government program that receives 
taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It complies with the demands by 
the Rivlin Commission, it complies with the promises by the city 
administration when they took office, and I urge our Members to vote 
for this bill. The next bill will only be worse.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize for most Members, this is just another 
bill. But I ask Members to recognize that for me, this is my life and 
my city, and your Capital City.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill puts me in the worst of positions. The Mayor 
cannot support a bill that would wreck the city. My city council, which 
has gathered courage, now finds it did not do any good. The Congress 
has second-guessed it. And I do not know what I am going to recommend 
as Members come up to me and say, ``Eleanor, what shall we do?'' And I 
do not know, I must say to you, whether it would make a dime's worth of 
difference, whatever I recommend.
  This is an appropriations bill, my friends, so let us talk about 
money. I have heard in this debate about ``your money.'' Let us be 
clear whose money this is. More than 80 percent of the money in this 
bill is the hard-earned money raised in the District of Columbia from 
District taxpayers.
  This is not your Federal payment alone. This is our money, and we 
cannot get our money without coming to a national legislature to get 
it. I hope Members are proud of that, because, if they are, they should 
be ashamed of that. This is not a Federal agency. This is a self-
governing jurisdiction of the United States of America.

[[Page H 11640]]

  My greatest regret about this bill is how close it came to being a 
bipartisan bill. I do not know why four pages of home rule violations 
were put on the bill, but I do know that the Speaker stepped forward 
and said ``Perhaps we can work this out,'' and they got off the bill. I 
said, ``Oh, my goodness, we really are going toward bipartisanship.''
  I appreciate that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] cooperated 
in that procedure and has said that he never indeed intended to have 
the bill, nor did the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] intend 
to have the bill full of home rule matters that were unrelated to the 
appropriation.
  At the end of the day, however, this bill has in fact invited other 
home rule violations, of a kind that only excite those who would 
ordinarily vote for the bill. By allowing on to the appropriation these 
amendments, the majority has made it impossible for me to do what I 
certainly desire to do, and that was to get votes on my side of the 
aisle. It is very hard to ask a Member to vote for you when you are 
asking a Member to vote against his own principles on something like 
abortion, especially when the amendment on abortion of the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Walsh] was expected, and we have an escalated 
version. It makes it very difficult for all of us, and especially for 
me.
  Whose money is this? Let us be entirely accurate. This is a Congress 
that is particularly excited about taxes. I bet there are few Members 
in this Congress who know that there is only one State that pays more 
taxes to the Federal Treasury per capita than I do. And yet I stand 
before this body representing 600,000 District residents, and I cannot 
vote for the bill that is before us, the bill that has my money, my 
taxpayers' money in it, far more than any Federal money in it.
  We are No. 2 per capita. If you are from New Jersey, my hat is off to 
you, because you pay more taxes per capita to the Federal Government 
than I do. The rest of you, get in line behind me.
  Nor am I here as an apologist for my own city or city government. You 
have not heard me say ``This is a wonderful city government; why don't 
you vote for it?'' We know the city government has problems. The city 
government has in fact agreed to the acceptance of a financial control 
board.
  How many times did I go before my own people and publicly say, 
``Reform your own government, or the Congress may do it.'' So to beat 
up on the District government because it is not yet reformed is 
particularly gratuitous, since we have just put in place a financial 
authority to assist it in reforming. The authority just got there, and 
got there only in time to cut.
  It is said, ``Hey, why doesn't the government look wonderful yet?'' 
The government looks about the same way it does in Syracuse and in 
Newark and in San Diego and Atlanta, and it needs reforming, and you 
have in place a mechanism to do that reform. And you are not respecting 
that mechanism when it says if you cut beyond what they are already 
cut, you will cut into the blood and guts of the District government 
and bring it down.
  I do not use those words lightly. I am more accustomed to going to 
the District government and saying ``Please, cut yourself before they 
cut.''
  We have heard a lot about the District and its responsibility. I do 
not know why we did not hear more about congressional responsibility. 
We have not heard a peep about $5 billion in unfunded pension liability 
handed to the District government when home rule was given. The 
Congress used to pay for the pensions out of its pocket because it had 
access to the Treasury. It gave us that unfunded pension liability and 
said ``Now you pay for it out of your pocket.'' That is $300 million a 
year we pay so our cops can get their pensions. And the Federal 
Government and the Congress have not responded when we have said ``Help 
us out of this, and you will help our budget and help our bond 
rating.''

  We have not heard them tell us about Medicaid, where we pay the 
entire cost, county and State, of Medicaid; and not one Member comes 
from a city that would be left standing if that were the case. And we 
have not heard them say a thing about State prison systems, and we are 
the only city in the United States that pays the full cost of State 
prisons. Medicaid and the State prison system, as much as anything, 
these are what has driven the District close to insolvency. When one 
talks about unfunded Federal mandates, if they hurt your State, they 
hurt your entire State.
  The budget cuts are not cuts I oppose on their face. The financial 
authority said ``Give us time to do the reengineering before any more 
cuts.'' Why that would not be respected is completely puzzling to me. 
For 2 years in a row, the District simply cannot take it off the top. 
That is what we are asking them to do. We are saying take it from the 
police department, that cannot get the cars out of the garage. We have 
had to raise the retirement age of the police department and cut the 
pay, so the police department is completely noncompetitive. We cannot 
recruit police. That is a danger to public safety. This shows callous 
disregard for innocent bystanders, the people who pay the highest taxes 
per capita in the United States, except for New Jersey.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] had a case to make on the 
merits, and he has failed to make it. Let me make it quickly. The 
reasons that he did not need this reckless cut, the reasons that he did 
not need these amendments, are the following: On his watch, there has 
been the establishment of a financial authority. On his watch the 
District has eliminated 3,600 jobs, not 2,000 as the Congress demanded. 
On his watch, the authority has gotten 750 additional positions from 
the District. On his watch there has been a 12-percent give-back from 
District employees and 6 furlough days. On his watch there has been the 
initiation of a baseline audit. On his watch there has been a reduction 
in spending from $3.9 billion to $3.3 billion. On his watch, the 
District has made requests that are in fact going through for Medicaid 
savings. That should have been enough to get this bill passed within 
putting on this bill amendments that have chased away those who 
devoutly wanted to support it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for recognizing the 
progress that we have made, and would submit we have a lot more to 
make.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bonilla], a member of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this time, and I 
rise in strong support of the District of Columbia appropriations bill. 
And in the spirit of David Letterman, I have a top 10 list of reasons 
why Republicans and Democrats should support this in a bipartisan way.
  Reason No. 10. It continues the process of restoring discipline and 
accountability in D.C. government.
  Reason No. 9. It is the responsibility of Congress to pass a bill 
that provides for the operation and maintenance of the Federal city, 
our Nation's capital.
  Reason No. 8. Prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to implement the 
Domestic Partners Act.
  Reason No. 7. Empowers control board to enforce the budget cap, 
allocate spending cuts and reprogram funds.
  Reason No. 6. Eliminates over 5,000 full time city positions.
  Reason No. 5. Places a spending cap at $4.87 billion.
  Reason No. 4. Appropriates $346 million less than the Mayor 
originally requested.
  Reason No. 3. Appropriates fewer Federal funds than last year.
  Reason No. 2. Appropriates $84 million less than last year.
  And reason No. 1. It is this bill or, more than likely, no bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to put in a word for an amendment I 
will be offering on this bill that will make it even better. Those who 
support adding additional funding and making it available to the 
District of Columbia for educational purposes will hopefully support my 
amendment to eliminate the special privilege allotted to the National 
Education Association of a property tax exemption, a privilege that is 
not granted to any other labor union in the District of Columbia and a 
privilege that should be revoked because we need to eliminate this 
privilege that has been on the books for a long time, granted by 
congressional charter.

[[Page H 11641]]

  We are not picking on the National Education Association. The IRS has 
already deemed it a union and it is only protected by the congressional 
charter that was written in the early part of the century. We need this 
money to be available for the District of Columbia and we hope that 
people will vote for this amendment on both sides of the aisle and 
support the District of Columbia's opportunity to garner $1.6 million 
in property taxes from a very rich union in D.C.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriations bill, and being an 
appropriations bill we are supposed to be dealing with financial 
issues. I do not like the fact that we have to interpose ourselves when 
it comes to the financial decisions of the District, that we have to 
interpose ourselves in their affairs, but we have no choice because the 
District Government has proven itself to be incapable of managing its 
financial affairs. Because that lack of capability has a spillover 
effect on taxpayers around the country, I think we have no choice but 
to reenter the fray.
  Having said that, I would observe, however, that I do not honestly 
believe, given the nature of the District and given the nature of the 
surrounding territory, the suburbs, I do not believe that the District 
will ever truly be financially viable unless there is exhibited a great 
deal, or a great--well, I will make somebody mad if I put it that way. 
Let me simply say that I think persons who reside in suburbs need to 
recognize their financial responsibilities to the District that they 
use to a much greater degree than they do right now if the District is 
ever to be financially viable. That will probably make some people mad, 
too.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with what I consider 
to be a very serious overreaching on the part of the Congress here this 
afternoon. It is one thing for us to make financial decisions affecting 
the District because we have no financial choice. It is quite another 
for us to become the city council for the District of Columbia on 
nonfinancial affairs and start changing D.C. law on a variety of 
subjects just because we do not like what D.C. law happens to be at 
this moment.
  Example. We are being asked to make major changes in D.C. law with 
respect to their education system. We are being asked to make major 
changes in D.C. law with respect to adoption. We are being asked to 
single out the NEA for the loss of a tax exemption, when there are many 
other organizations who are also exempt from paying property taxes in 
the District.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that when the Congress crosses the line and 
gets involved in these legislative issues it does so illegitimately for 
one very simple reason: Because the persons who live in the District of 
Columbia cannot retaliate against the elected officials who make those 
decisions. They have no ability to vote us in or out, unlike out 
constituents. And when we start making legislative decisions that 
affect their lives and they do not have any redress, our forefathers 
called that taxation without representation.
  So I think that when we get into these other legislative areas, we 
are engaging in an illegitimate legislative act, and that is why, when 
they come to the floor, if they do not relate strictly to the financial 
problems that the District has, I will not vote for them or against 
them. I will simply cast a vote ``present'' in order to, in some small 
way, to protest the fact that this House is being asked to act as a 
mini city council and I do not think our taxpayers back home expect us 
to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, we screw up enough of what we touch at the national 
level without wasting time screwing things up in the District of 
Columbia as well, to be blunt about it. I think that it is the height 
of arrogance for Members to use their power simply because in this 
instance we have the political ability to engage in these actions.
  I would simply observe in closing that while I do not know what the 
proper level of the Federal payment to the District ought to be, I 
think the committee has a right to make a judgment on that. But when we 
start telling the District how it must change its law on nonfinancial 
items, I think we are abusing the power we have been given by our own 
constituents and I think we ought not to do it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds just to clarify a 
couple of points just raised.
  I would remind the distinguished ranking member of the full committee 
that the Constitution of the United States, article 1, section 8, 
paragraph 17, empowers the Congress of the United States to exercise 
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District.
  Clearly, he would not argue with the founding fathers of this Nation 
who suggest that this is our responsibility.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I only have 5 seconds remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. OBEY. I would appreciate it if the gentleman would not mention my 
name if he is not going to yield to me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized. The 
gentleman from New York has the time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to lend my support and urge my 
fellow Members to vote in favor of H.R. 2546, the fiscal year 1996 
District of Columbia appropriations bill.
  Like most appropriations bills, this has some good elements to it; it 
has some bad element to it, and I would suggest to my colleagues that 
this is the first step in a long process of moving the appropriation 
bill through Congress and eventually getting it signed. I think the 
good news for the city is, as many other items are being cut around us, 
the appropriation level from Congress is consistent with last year's 
appropriations.
  No one seriously doubts that the District of Columbia is in the midst 
of a serious financial crisis. This Congress has already laid a strong 
foundation for the successful resolution of the city's problems with 
the passage of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
Management Assistance Act earlier this year. The authority has been 
operating for 5 months. It appears to be moving ahead forcefully with 
its mission, but the passage of that act did not absolve Congress of 
either its duties or obligations to the District of Columbia.
  The matter before us today, the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, 
must be passed for the District and the authority to know what 
parameters they must operate within from both policy and financial 
perspectives. The District can ask for, and the authority may recommend 
anything they want to Congress, but, ultimately, it is only Congress 
which has the power to act.
  Now, more than a full month into fiscal year 1996, the House must act 
to move forward in the process of dealing with the city's problems 
rather than continuing to wring our hands and talk about them. This 
legislation is only the first step in what will be a year-long fiscal 
year 1996 appropriations process for the city.
  The Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act 
established a special process for fiscal year 1996. One of the main 
reasons behind the creation of the authority is the lack of accurate 
financial information from the city. The authority and the city need 
substantial time to develop a more accurate picture of the true 
financial condition of the city.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress decided to delay the submission of the 
District's 4-year financial plan until February 1, 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the long hours of dedicated toil which Mr. 
Walsh, the chairman of the District of Columbia Appropriations 
Subcommittee and Mr. Livingston, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee have devoted to this bill. Their hard work was ably 
supplemented by the many invaluable contributions of Ms. Norton  and 
Mr. Dixon. Their efforts, aided by the valuable contribution of staff, 
in writing the bill and its rule mark a major step forward in this must 
pass legislation.
  The bill before the House this afternoon should be passed because it 
enables this body to deliberate and work its will on the budget of our 
Capital City including several matters of great importance not only to 
the 

[[Page H 11642]]

residents of our Nation's Capital, but to citizens all across America. 
No other city in our Nation holds the place of Washington, DC in the 
hearts of the American people. The city, its monuments, museums, and 
most of all, its public buildings symbolize all that is great and good 
about the American way of life. It is our duty to give mature 
consideration to its affairs and to do our best to enhance our Capital 
City and to help steer it back to a course of fiscal responsibility.
  The first year of the plan is a supplemental fiscal year 1996 budget. 
The supplemental budget will be a document that the authority has been 
intimately involved with from its inception. It will provide this 
Congress a second opportunity to exercise its collective oversight 
responsibilities for the District's finances and one with far more 
credibility as far as both revenue and spending estimates are 
concerned.
  This legislation sets an overall fiscal year 1996 District spending 
level at $4.867 billion. It establishes guidelines for the basic 
categories of the city's spending. The bill also establishes new, lower 
levels for FTEs. The city, under the vigilant guidance of the 
authority, has begun the process of reforming itself. Passage of H.R. 
2546 is the next, essential step in the process. H.R. 2546 is important 
not only because our Nation's Capital needs a budget. It needs a budget 
which will enable it to move a few more steps along the road to 
financial stability. By moving the appropriations process forward, we 
come closer to meeting our responsibility for the well being of the 
District.
  This legislation serves to further the new and vital partnership we 
are forging between the 104th Congress and our Nation's Capital. As 
this bill works its way through the legislative process it may receive 
further modifications. In its final form, the fiscal year 1996 District 
appropriation bill will be a reflection of both local and national 
priorities. Only by working closely together as partners can either the 
District of Columbia, the White House, or Congress realize our common 
goal--a city in which all Americans take great pride.
  Once again, I commend the hard work of the members and staff who have 
brought us to this point in the process. I am happy to stand in strong 
support of this bill and urge all my colleagues to do likewise and to 
vote in favor of H.R. 2546.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise as a lawyer who spent most of her life as a constitutional scholar 
to say that it is inappropriate to cite the Constitution of the United 
States for taxation without representation. It is inappropriate to cite 
the Constitution of the United States for overriding the consent of the 
governed. To do so is to defile the Constitution and to defame Madison, 
its principal author.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say to the gentlewoman that I would suggest it is never wrong to quote 
from the Constitution of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I would never defile that five-foot-four 
package of constitutional genius James Madison, nor George Mason up 
here, who was too old to ever be President and loved his privacy too 
much, but who also probably should have debated this whole thing 
longer.
  I will not apologize for interesting myself in this Federal enclave, 
our beloved District. It is my job. It is the job of all 435 of us. But 
I do come close to feeling empathy for when we discuss domestic 
partnership, abortions in the District, and other issues that seem far 
afield from a District that, frankly, I am surprised somebody did not 
come up with a motion to strip it of its name, Columbia, because it is 
named after a dead, white, Catholic, Italian male who sailed from Spain 
and did not find what he was looking for.
  But, nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, let me put everyone on notice about 
two amendments coming up here. The Bonilla-Hayes, that is a good member 
of the minority, Dornan amendment on tax exempt status for one of the 
most politically charged groups in America, the National Education 
Association.
  My brother is a high school teacher, finishing his third decade as 
one of the best high school teachers I have ever watched in operation 
in my life. He will not join this organization because it is so 
politically fired up and so ideologically far left. I will avoid words 
like, extremist and radical, like we heard earlier in the debate.
  The other is domestic partnership, Mr. Chairman. This will be a 
fascinating debate because in Seattle they decided they were not about 
to ask firemen and policemen if they do the nasty; if they have bizarre 
sex with their roommate. So they said it is going to apply to bonded 
friendships. Heterosexual females living together as friends for life, 
males brought together by bonding of mutual affection, vets from 
Vietnam who saved one another's lives.
  There is going to be a strange commonsense debate on what is wrong 
with domestic partnership. When they have to fire, they perform certain 
weird sex acts.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify a couple of points that have 
been made earlier in the debate, the appropriated level in this bill is 
$84 million less than last year's appropriated level. There are a lot 
of other numbers that have been offered. The District government 
requested an appropriation level; the Control Board responded to that; 
the subcommittee responded to that. Mr. Chairman, take all the numbers 
away, we end up with $84 million less than last year.
  Again, regarding the Constitution, it does clearly state that 
Congress has the authority and responsibility regarding the District of 
Columbia. The Home Rule Act was a delegation of that responsibility to 
the District government, but it was contingent upon the District 
presenting balanced budgets to the Congress each and every year.
  Mr. Chairman, the General Accounting Office showed us very clearly 
that over the last 3 or 4 years, they have not done that. They used 
fiscal gimmickry, they decided not to make pension payments, or they 
included five quarters of property tax collections in 1 year, which is 
impossible. There are four quarters in 1 year and they cannot get five 
quarters in 1 year. Mr. Chairman, they did anything and everything to 
make it look like the budgets were balanced. But the fact is they have 
not been balanced.
  Mr. Chairman, we have bent over backward to continue home rule. Mr. 
Chairman, lately this committee has done its best to try to allow the 
District to continue to govern itself, and we have asked the Control 
Board to work with the District government to resolve some of these 
issues.
  We are prepared to support the Control Board and give them the 
authority to allocate the reductions recommended in our bill. I think 
that is fair.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for general 
debate has expired.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in House Report 104-302, if offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], or his designee. That 
amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall 
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment. 
Debate on each further amendment shall be limited to 30 minutes.
  It shall be in order to consider each of the amendments numbered 1, 
2, or 4 printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record if 
offered by the Member who caused each to be printed, or a designee. 
Each of those amendments shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that has been printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.

[[Page H 11643]]

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of 
     Columbia for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to consider 
the amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].


                     amendment offered by mr. walsh

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walsh: Page 57, line 23, strike 
     ``Section'' and insert ``(a) In General.--Section''.
       Page 58, insert after line 4 the following:
       (b) No Effect on Petitions for Adoption Filed by Individual 
     Unmarried Petitioner.--Nothing in section 16-302(b), D.C. 
     Code (as added by subsection (a)) shall be construed to 
     affect the ability of any unmarried person to file a petition 
     for adoption in the Superior Court of the District of 
     Columbia where no other person joins in the petition.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment clarifies the language in 
section 153 on pages 57 and 58 of the bill concerning adoptions by 
unmarried couples.
  Mr. Chairman, the language presently in the bill amends the D.C. Code 
and requires that a person who joins in a petition to adopt must be 
spouse of the petitioner.
  My perfecting amendment makes it clear that the language does not 
apply to individual, unmarried petitioners. In other words, a single 
person is permitted to file a petition for adoption, and that has 
always been the case.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition, nor do I know of 
anyone who is in opposition. I am in opposition to the original 
underlying amendment here, but I have no objections to it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read 
through page 58, line 4.
  The text of H.R. 2546, as amended, through page 58, line 4, is as 
follows:

              Federal Payment to the District of Columbia

       For payment to the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1996, $660,000,000, as authorized by 
     section 502(a) of the District of Columbia Self-Government 
     and Governmental Reorganization Act, Public Law 93-198, as 
     amended (D.C. Code, sec. 47-3406.1).

                Federal Contribution to Retirement Funds

       For the Federal contribution to the Police Officers and 
     Fire Fighters', Teachers', and Judges' Retirement Funds, as 
     authorized by the District of Columbia Retirement Reform Act, 
     approved November 17, 1979 (93 Stat. 866; Public Law 96-122), 
     $52,000,000.

                          Division of Expenses

       The following amounts are appropriated for the District of 
     Columbia for the current fiscal year out of the general fund 
     of the District of Columbia, except as otherwise specifically 
     provided.

                   Governmental Direction and Support

       Governmental direction and support, $149,793,000 and 1,465 
     full-time equivalent positions (end of year) (including 
     $118,167,000 and 1,125 full-time equivalent positions from 
     local funds, $2,464,000 and 5 full-time equivalent positions 
     from Federal funds, $4,474,000 and 71 full-time equivalent 
     positions from other funds, and $24,688,000 and 264 full-time 
     equivalent positions from intra-District funds): Provided, 
     That not to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the 
     Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, and 
     $2,500 for the City Administrator shall be available from 
     this appropriation for expenditures for official purposes: 
     Provided further, That any program fees collected from the 
     issuance of debt shall be available for the payment of 
     expenses of the debt management program of the District of 
     Columbia: Provided further, That $29,500,000 is used for pay-
     as-you-go capital projects of which $1,500,000 shall be used 
     for a capital needs assessment study, and $28,000,000 shall 
     be used for a new financial management system of which 
     $2,000,000 shall be used to develop a needs analysis and 
     assessment of the existing financial management environment, 
     and the remaining $26,000,000 shall be used to procure the 
     necessary hardware and installation of new software, 
     conversion, testing and training: Provided further, That the 
     $26,000,000 shall not be obligated or expended until: (1) the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority submits a report to the General 
     Accounting Office within 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act reporting the results of the needs analysis and 
     assessment of the existing financial management environment, 
     specifying the deficiencies in, and recommending necessary 
     improvements to or replacement of the District's financial 
     management system including a detailed explanation of each 
     recommendation and its estimated cost; (2) the General 
     Accounting Office reviews the Authority's report and forwards 
     it along with such comments or recommendations as deemed 
     appropriate on any matter contained therein to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House and the Senate, the Committee 
     on Governmental Reform and Oversight of the House, and the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate within 60 
     days from receipt of the report; and (3) 30 days lapse after 
     receipt by Congress of the General Accounting Office's 
     comments or recommendations.

                  Economic Development and Regulation

       Economic development and regulation, $139,285,000 and 1,692 
     full-time equivalent positions (end-of-year) (including 
     $66,505,000 and 696 full-time equivalent positions from local 
     funds, $38,792,000 and 509 full-time equivalent positions 
     from Federal funds, $17,658,000 and 260 full-time equivalent 
     positions from other funds, and $16,330,000 and 227 full-time 
     equivalent positions from intra-District funds): Provided, 
     That the District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency, 
     established by section 201 of the District of Columbia 
     Housing Finance Agency Act, effective March 3, 1979 (D.C. Law 
     2-135; D.C. Code, sec. 45-2111), based upon its capability of 
     repayments as determined each year by the Council of the 
     District of Columbia from the Housing Finance Agency's annual 
     audited financial statements to the Council of the District 
     of Columbia, shall repay to the general fund an amount equal 
     to the appropriated administrative costs plus interest at a 
     rate of four percent per annum for a term of 15 years, with a 
     deferral of payments for the first three years: Provided 
     further, That notwithstanding the foregoing provision, the 
     obligation to repay all or part of the amounts due shall be 
     subject to the rights of the owners of any bonds or notes 
     issued by the Housing Finance Agency and shall be repaid to 
     the District of Columbia government only from available 
     operating revenues of the Housing Finance Agency that are in 
     excess of the amounts required for debt service, reserve 
     funds, and operating expenses: Provided further, That upon 
     commencement of the debt service payments, such payments 
     shall be deposited into the general fund of the District of 
     Columbia.

                       Public Safety and Justice

       Public safety and justice, including purchase of 135 
     passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement only, including 
     130 for police-type use and five for fire-type use, without 
     regard to the general purchase price limitation for the 
     current fiscal year, $954,106,000 and 11,544 full-time 
     equivalent positions (end-of-year) (including $930,889,000 
     and 11,365 full-time equivalent positions from local funds, 
     $8,942,000 and 70 full-time equivalent positions from Federal 
     funds, $5,160,000 and 4 full-time equivalent positions from 
     other funds, and $9,115,000 and 105 full-time equivalent 
     positions from intra-District funds): Provided, That the 
     Metropolitan Police Department is authorized to replace not 
     to exceed 25 passenger-carrying vehicles and the Fire 
     Department of the District of Columbia is authorized to 
     replace not to exceed five passenger-carrying vehicles 
     annually whenever the cost of repair to any damaged vehicle 
     exceeds three-fourths of the cost of the replacement: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be 
     available from this appropriation for the Chief of Police for 
     the prevention and detection of crime: Provided further, That 
     the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide quarterly 
     reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
     Senate on efforts to increase efficiency and improve the 
     professionalism in the department: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order 
     86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Metropolitan Police 
     Department's delegated small purchase authority shall be 
     $500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     government may not require the Metropolitan Police Department 
     to submit to any other procurement review process, or to 
     obtain the approval of or be restricted in any manner by any 
     official or employee of the District of Columbia government, 
     for purchases that do not exceed $500,000: Provided further, 
     That the Metropolitan Police Department shall employ an 
     authorized level of sworn officers not to be less than 3,800 
     sworn officers for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996: 
     Provided further, That funds appropriated for expenses under 
     the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act, approved 
     September 3, 1974 (88 Stat. 1090; Public Law 93-412; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 11-2601 et seq.), for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, shall be available for obligations 
     incurred under 

[[Page H 11644]]

     the Act in each fiscal year since inception in the fiscal 
     year 1975: Provided further, That funds appropriated for 
     expenses under the District of Columbia Neglect 
     Representation Equity Act of 1984, effective March 13, 1985 
     (D.C. Law 5-129; D.C. Code, sec. 16-2304), for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1996, shall be available for 
     obligations incurred under the Act in each fiscal year since 
     inception in the fiscal year 1985: Provided further, That 
     funds appropriated for expenses under the District of 
     Columbia Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable 
     Power of Attorney Act of 1986, effective February 27, 1987 
     (D.C. Law 6-204; D.C. Code, sec. 21-2060), for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1996, shall be available for 
     obligations incurred under the Act in each fiscal year since 
     inception in fiscal year 1989: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $1,500 for the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia 
     Court of Appeals, $1,500 for the Chief Judge of the Superior 
     Court of the District of Columbia, and $1,500 for the 
     Executive Officer of the District of Columbia Courts shall be 
     available from this appropriation for official purposes: 
     Provided further, That the District of Columbia shall operate 
     and maintain a free, 24-hour telephone information service 
     whereby residents of the area surrounding Lorton prison in 
     Fairfax County, Virginia, can promptly obtain information 
     from District of Columbia government officials on all 
     disturbances at the prison, including escapes, riots, and 
     similar incidents: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia government shall also take steps to publicize the 
     availability of the 24-hour telephone information service 
     among the residents of the area surrounding the Lorton 
     prison: Provided further, That not to exceed $100,000 of this 
     appropriation shall be used to reimburse Fairfax County, 
     Virginia, and Prince William County, Virginia, for expenses 
     incurred by the counties during the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, in relation to the Lorton prison complex: 
     Provided further, That such reimbursements shall be paid in 
     all instances in which the District requests the counties to 
     provide police, fire, rescue, and related services to help 
     deal with escapes, fires, riots, and similar disturbances 
     involving the prison: Provided further, That the Mayor shall 
     reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for 
     expenses incurred in connection with services that are 
     performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia 
     status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall 
     be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for 
     these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the 
     District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That 
     such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the 
     District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding 
     proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the 
     availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting 
     payment in advance for emergency services involved.

                        Public Education System

       Public education system, including the development of 
     national defense education programs, $788,983,000 and 11,670 
     full-time equivalent positions (end-of-year) (including 
     $670,833,000 and 9,996 full-time equivalent positions from 
     local funds, $87,385,000 and 1,227 full-time equivalent 
     positions from Federal funds, $21,719,000 and 234 full-time 
     equivalent positions from other funds, and $9,046,000 and 213 
     full-time equivalent positions from intra-District funds), to 
     be allocated as follows: $577,242,000 and 10,167 full-time 
     equivalent positions (including $494,556,000 and 9,014 full-
     time equivalent positions from local funds, $75,786,000 and 
     1,058 full-time equivalent positions from Federal funds, 
     $4,343,000 and 44 full-time equivalent positions from other 
     funds, and $2,557,000 and 51 full-time equivalent positions 
     from intra-District funds), for the public schools of the 
     District of Columbia; $109,175,000 from local funds shall be 
     allocated for the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement 
     Fund; $79,269,000 and 1,079 full-time equivalent positions 
     (including $45,250,000 and 572 full-time equivalent positions 
     from local funds, $10,611,000 and 156 full-time equivalent 
     positions from Federal funds, $16,922,000 and 189 full-time 
     equivalent positions from other funds, and $6,486,000 and 162 
     full-time equivalent positions from intra-District funds) for 
     the University of the District of Columbia; $21,062,000 and 
     415 full-time equivalent positions (including $20,159,000 and 
     408 full-time equivalent positions from local funds, $446,000 
     and 6 full-time equivalent positions from Federal funds, 
     $454,000 and 1 full-time equivalent position from other 
     funds, and $3,000 from intra-District funds) for the Public 
     Library; $2,267,000 and 9 full-time equivalent positions 
     (including $1,725,000 and 2 full-time equivalent positions 
     from local funds and $542,000 and 7 full-time equivalent 
     positions from Federal funds) for the Commission on the Arts 
     and Humanities; $64,000 from local funds for the District of 
     Columbia School of Law and a reduction of $96,000 for the 
     Education Licensure Commission: Provided, That the public 
     schools of the District of Columbia are authorized to accept 
     not to exceed 31 motor vehicles for exclusive use in the 
     driver education program: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $2,500 for the Superintendent of Schools, $2,500 for 
     the President of the University of the District of Columbia, 
     and $2,000 for the Public Librarian shall be available from 
     this appropriation for expenditures for official purposes: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall not be 
     available to subsidize the education of nonresidents of the 
     District of Columbia at the University of the District of 
     Columbia, unless the Board of Trustees of the University of 
     the District of Columbia adopts, for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1996, a tuition rate schedule that will 
     establish the tuition rate for nonresident students at a 
     level no lower than the nonresident tuition rate charged at 
     comparable public institutions of higher education in the 
     metropolitan area.

                         Human Support Services

       Human support services, $1,845,638,000 and 6,469 full-time 
     equivalent positions (end-of-year) (including $1,067,516,000 
     and 3,650 full-time equivalent positions from local funds, 
     $726,685,000 and 2,639 full-time equivalent positions from 
     Federal funds, $46,763,000 and 66 full-time equivalent 
     positions from other funds, and $4,674,000 and 114 full-time 
     equivalent positions from intra-District funds): Provided, 
     That $26,000,000 of this appropriation, to remain available 
     until expended, shall be available solely for District of 
     Columbia employees' disability compensation: Provided 
     further, That the District shall not provide free government 
     services such as water, sewer, solid waste disposal or 
     collection, utilities, maintenance, repairs, or similar 
     services to any legally constituted private nonprofit 
     organization (as defined in section 411(5) of Public Law 100-
     77, approved July 22, 1987) providing emergency shelter 
     services in the District, if the District would not be 
     qualified to receive reimbursement pursuant to the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, approved July 22, 1987 (101 
     Stat. 485; Public Law 100-77; 42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.).

                              Public Works

       Public works, including rental of one passenger-carrying 
     vehicle for use by the Mayor and three passenger-carrying 
     vehicles for use by the Council of the District of Columbia 
     and purchase of passenger-carrying vehicles for replacement 
     only, $297,326,000 and 1,914 full-time equivalent positions 
     (end-of-year) (including $225,673,000 and 1,158 full-time 
     equivalent positions from local funds, $2,682,000 and 32 
     full-time equivalent positions from Federal funds, 
     $18,342,000 and 68 full-time equivalent positions from other 
     funds, and $50,629,000 and 656 full-time equivalent positions 
     from intra-District funds): Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall not be available for collecting ashes or miscellaneous 
     refuse from hotels and places of business.

                   Washington Convention Center Fund

       For payment to the Washington Convention Center Fund, 
     $5,400,000 from local funds.

                    Repayment of Loans and Interest

       For reimbursement to the United States of funds loaned in 
     compliance with An Act to provide for the establishment of a 
     modern, adequate, and efficient hospital center in the 
     District of Columbia, approved August 7, 1946 (60 Stat. 896; 
     Public Law 79-648); section 1 of An Act to authorize the 
     Commissioners of the District of Columbia to borrow funds for 
     capital improvement programs and to amend provisions of law 
     relating to Federal Government participation in meeting costs 
     of maintaining the Nation's Capital City, approved June 6, 
     1958 (72 Stat. 183; Public Law 85-451; D.C. Code, sec. 9-
     219); section 4 of An Act to authorize the Commissioners of 
     the District of Columbia to plan, construct, operate, and 
     maintain a sanitary sewer to connect the Dulles International 
     Airport with the District of Columbia system, approved June 
     12, 1960 (74 Stat. 211; Public Law 86-515); sections 723 and 
     743(f) of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
     Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, approved December 
     24, 1973, as amended (87 Stat. 821; Public Law 93-198; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 47-321, note; 91 Stat. 1156; Public Law 95-131; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 9-219, note), including interest as required 
     thereby, $327,787,000 from local funds.

                Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt

       For the purpose of eliminating the $331,589,000 general 
     fund accumulated deficit as of September 30, 1990, 
     $38,678,000 from local funds, as authorized by section 461(a) 
     of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act, approved December 24, 1973, as amended 
     (105 Stat. 540; Public Law 102-106; D.C. Code, sec. 47-
     321(a)).

                          Short-Term Borrowing

       For short-term borrowing, $9,698,000 from local funds.

             Pay Renegotiation or Reduction     in Compensation

       The Mayor shall reduce appropriations and expenditures for 
     personal services in the amount of $46,409,000, by decreasing 
     rates of compensation for District government employees; such 
     decreased rates are to be realized for employees who are 
     subject to collective bargaining agreements to the extent 
     possible through the renegotiation of existing collective 
     bargaining agreements: Provided, That, if a sufficient 
     reduction from employees who are subject to collective 
     bargaining agreements is not realized through renegotiating 
     existing agreements, the Mayor shall decrease rates of 
     compensation for such employees, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of any collective bargaining agreements.

                             Rainy Day Fund

       For mandatory unavoidable expenditures within one or 
     several of the various appropriation headings of this Act, to 
     be allocated to the budgets for personal services and 
     nonpersonal services as requested by the Mayor and approved 
     by the Council pursuant 

[[Page H 11645]]

     to the procedures in section 4 of the Reprogramming Policy 
     Act of 1980, effective September 16, 1980 (D.C. Law 3-100; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 47-363), $4,563,000 from local funds: 
     Provided, That the District of Columbia shall provide to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate quarterly reports by the 15th day of the month 
     following the end of the quarter showing how monies provided 
     under this fund are expended with a final report providing a 
     full accounting of the fund due October 15, 1996 or not later 
     than 15 days after the last amount remaining in the fund is 
     disbursed.

                        Incentive Buyout Program

       For the purpose of funding costs associated with the 
     incentive buyout program, to be apportioned by the Mayor of 
     the District of Columbia within the various appropriation 
     headings in this Act from which costs are properly payable, 
     $19,000,000.

                         Outplacement Services

       For the purpose of funding outplacement services for 
     employees who leave the District of Columbia government 
     involuntarily, $1,500,000.

                         Boards and Commissions

       The Mayor shall reduce appropriations and expenditures for 
     boards and commissions under the various headings in this Act 
     in the amount of $500,000.

                   Government Re-Engineering Program

       The Mayor shall reduce appropriations and expenditures for 
     personal and nonpersonal services in the amount of 
     $16,000,000 within one or several of the various 
     appropriation headings in this Act.

             Personal and Nonpersonal Services Adjustments

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Mayor shall 
     adjust appropriations and expenditures for personal and 
     nonpersonal services, together with the related full-time 
     equivalent positions, in accordance with the direction of the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority such that there is a net reduction of 
     $148,411,000, within or among one or several of the various 
     appropriation headings in this Act, pursuant to section 208 
     of Public Law 104-8, approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat. 134).

                             Capital Outlay


                        (including Rescissions)

       For construction projects, $168,222,000, as authorized by 
     An Act authorizing the laying of water mains and service 
     sewers in the District of Columbia, the levying of 
     assessments therefor, and for other purposes, approved April 
     22, 1904 (33 Stat. 244; Public Law 58-140; D.C. Code, secs. 
     43-1512 through 43-1519); the District of Columbia Public 
     Works Act of 1954, approved May 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 101; 
     Public Law 83-364); An Act to authorize the Commissioners of 
     the District of Columbia to borrow funds for capital 
     improvement programs and to amend provisions of law relating 
     to Federal Government participation in meeting costs of 
     maintaining the Nation's Capital City, approved June 6, 1958 
     (72 Stat. 183; Public Law 85-451; including acquisition of 
     sites, preparation of plans and specifications, conducting 
     preliminary surveys, erection of structures, including 
     building improvement and alteration and treatment of grounds, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     $105,660,000 appropriated under this heading in prior fiscal 
     years is rescinded: Provided further, That funds for use of 
     each capital project implementing agency shall be managed and 
     controlled in accordance with all procedures and limitations 
     established under the Financial Management System: Provided 
     further, That all funds provided by this appropriation title 
     shall be available only for the specific projects and 
     purposes intended: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     foregoing, all authorizations for capital outlay projects, 
     except those projects covered by the first sentence of 
     section 23(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968, 
     approved August 23, 1968 (82 Stat. 827; Public Law 90-495; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 7-134, note), for which funds are provided by 
     this appropriation title, shall expire on September 30, 1997, 
     except authorizations for projects as to which funds have 
     been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30, 
     1997: Provided further, That upon expiration of any such 
     project authorization the funds provided herein for the 
     project shall lapse.

                    Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund

       For the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund, $193,398,000 and 
     1,024 full-time equivalent positions (end-of-year) (including 
     $188,221,000 and 924 full-time equivalent positions from 
     local funds, $433,000 from other funds, and $4,744,000 and 
     100 full-time equivalent positions from intra-District 
     funds), of which $41,036,000 shall be apportioned and payable 
     to the debt service fund for repayment of loans and interest 
     incurred for capital improvement projects.
       For construction projects, $39,477,000, as authorized by An 
     Act authorizing the laying of water mains and service sewers 
     in the District of Columbia, the levying of assessments 
     therefor, and for other purposes, approved April 22, 1904 (33 
     Stat. 244; Public Law 58-140; D.C. Code, sec. 43-1512 et 
     seq.): Provided, That the requirements and restrictions that 
     are applicable to general fund capital improvement projects 
     and set forth in this Act under the Capital Outlay 
     appropriation title shall apply to projects approved under 
     this appropriation title.

              Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund

       For the Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund, 
     established by the District of Columbia Appropriation Act for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1982, approved December 
     4, 1981 (95 Stat. 1174, 1175; Public Law 97-91), as amended, 
     for the purpose of implementing the Law to Legalize 
     Lotteries, Daily Numbers Games, and Bingo and Raffles for 
     Charitable Purposes in the District of Columbia, effective 
     March 10, 1981 (D.C. Law 3-172; D.C. Code, secs. 2-2501 et 
     seq. and 22-1516 et seq.), $229,907,000 and 88 full-time 
     equivalent positions (end-of-year) (including $8,099,000 and 
     88 full-time equivalent positions for administrative expenses 
     and $221,808,000 for non-administrative expenses from revenue 
     generated by the Lottery Board), to be derived from non-
     Federal District of Columbia revenues: Provided, That the 
     District of Columbia shall identify the source of funding for 
     this appropriation title from the District's own locally-
     generated revenues: Provided further, That no revenues from 
     Federal sources shall be used to support the operations or 
     activities of the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board.

                    Cable Television Enterprise Fund

       For the Cable Television Enterprise Fund, established by 
     the Cable Television Communications Act of 1981, effective 
     October 22, 1983 (D.C. Law 5-36; D.C. Code, sec. 43-1801 et 
     seq.), $2,469,000 and 8 full-time equivalent positions (end-
     of-year) (including $2,137,000 and 8 full-time equivalent 
     positions from local funds and $332,000 from other funds), of 
     which $690,000 shall be transferred to the general fund of 
     the District of Columbia.

                             Starplex Fund

       For the Starplex Fund, $8,637,000 from other funds for the 
     expenses incurred by the Armory Board in the exercise of its 
     powers granted by An Act To Establish a District of Columbia 
     Armory Board, and for other purposes, approved June 4, 1948 
     (62 Stat. 339; D.C. Code, sec. 2-301 et seq.) and the 
     District of Columbia Stadium Act of 1957, approved September 
     7, 1957 (71 Stat. 619; Public Law 85-300; D.C. Code, sec. 2-
     321 et seq.): Provided, That the Mayor shall submit a budget 
     for the Armory Board for the forthcoming fiscal year as 
     required by section 442(b) of the District of Columbia Self-
     Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, approved 
     December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 824; Public Law 93-198; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 47-301(b)).

                         D.C. General Hospital

       For the District of Columbia General Hospital, established 
     by Reorganization Order No. 57 of the Board of Commissioners, 
     effective August 15, 1953, a reduction of $2,487,000 and a 
     reduction of 180 full-time equivalent positions in intra-
     District funds.

                         D.C. Retirement Board

       For the D.C. Retirement Board, established by section 121 
     of the District of Columbia Comprehensive Retirement Reform 
     Act of 1989, approved November 17, 1989 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 1-711), $13,417,000 and 11 full-time equivalent 
     positions (end-of-year) from the earnings of the applicable 
     retirement funds to pay legal, management, investment, and 
     other fees and administrative expenses of the District of 
     Columbia Retirement Board: Provided, That the District of 
     Columbia Retirement Board shall provide to the Congress and 
     to the Council of the District of Columbia a quarterly report 
     of the allocations of charges by fund and of expenditures of 
     all funds: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Board shall provide the Mayor, for transmittal to 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, an item accounting 
     of the planned use of appropriated funds in time for each 
     annual budget submission and the actual use of such funds in 
     time for each annual audited financial report.

                      Correctional Industries Fund

       For the Correctional Industries Fund, established by the 
     District of Columbia Correctional Industries Establishment 
     Act, approved October 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 1000; Public Law 88-
     622), $10,048,000 and 66 full-time equivalent positions (end-
     of-year) (including $3,415,000 and 22 full-time equivalent 
     positions from other funds and $6,633,000 and 44 full-time 
     equivalent positions from intra-District funds).

              Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund

       For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund, 
     $37,957,000, of which $5,400,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from the general fund.

District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
                               Authority

       For the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority, established by section 
     101(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Act of 1995, approved April 17, 
     1995 (109 Stat. 97; Public Law 104-8), $3,500,000.

                           General Provisions

       Sec. 101. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.

[[Page H 11646]]

       Sec. 102. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all 
     vouchers covering expenditures of appropriations contained in 
     this Act shall be audited before payment by the designated 
     certifying official and the vouchers as approved shall be 
     paid by checks issued by the designated disbursing official.
       Sec. 103. Whenever in this Act, an amount is specified 
     within an appropriation for particular purposes or objects of 
     expenditure, such amount, unless otherwise specified, shall 
     be considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for 
     said purpose or object rather than an amount set apart 
     exclusively therefor.
       Sec. 104. Appropriations in this Act shall be available, 
     when authorized by the Mayor, for allowances for privately 
     owned automobiles and motorcycles used for the performance of 
     official duties at rates established by the Mayor: Provided, 
     That such rates shall not exceed the maximum prevailing rates 
     for such vehicles as prescribed in the Federal Property 
     Management Regulations 101-7 (Federal Travel Regulations).
       Sec. 105. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     expenses of travel and for the payment of dues of 
     organizations concerned with the work of the District of 
     Columbia government, when authorized by the Mayor: Provided, 
     That the Council of the District of Columbia and the District 
     of Columbia Courts may expend such funds without 
     authorization by the Mayor.
       Sec. 106. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making refunds and for the payment of judgments that have 
     been entered against the District of Columbia government: 
     Provided, That nothing contained in this section shall be 
     construed as modifying or affecting the provisions of section 
     11(c)(3) of title XII of the District of Columbia Income and 
     Franchise Tax Act of 1947, approved March 31, 1956 (70 Stat. 
     78; Public Law 84-460; D.C. Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
       Sec. 107. Appropriations in this Act shall be available for 
     the payment of public assistance without reference to the 
     requirement of section 544 of the District of Columbia Public 
     Assistance Act of 1982, effective April 6, 1982 (D.C. Law 4-
     101; D.C. Code, sec. 3-205.44), and for the non-Federal share 
     of funds necessary to qualify for Federal assistance under 
     the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968, 
     approved July 31, 1968 (82 Stat. 462; Public Law 90-445; 42 
     U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).
       Sec. 108. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 109. No funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     District of Columbia government for the operation of 
     educational institutions, the compensation of personnel, or 
     for other educational purposes may be used to permit, 
     encourage, facilitate, or further partisan political 
     activities. Nothing herein is intended to prohibit the 
     availability of school buildings for the use of any community 
     or partisan political group during non-school hours.
       Sec. 110. The annual budget for the District of Columbia 
     government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, 
     shall be transmitted to the Congress no later than April 15, 
     1996.
       Sec. 111. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be made available to pay the salary of any employee of the 
     District of Columbia government whose name, title, grade, 
     salary, past work experience, and salary history are not 
     available for inspection by the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations, the House Committee on Government Reform 
     and Oversight, District of Columbia Subcommittee, the 
     Subcommittee on General Services, Federalism, and the 
     District of Columbia, of the Senate Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs, and the Council of the District of Columbia, or 
     their duly authorized representative: Provided, That none of 
     the funds contained in this Act shall be made available to 
     pay the salary of any employee of the District of Columbia 
     government whose name and salary are not available for public 
     inspection.
       Sec. 112. There are appropriated from the applicable funds 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary for 
     making payments authorized by the District of Columbia 
     Revenue Recovery Act of 1977, effective September 23, 1977 
     (D.C. Law 2-20; D.C. Code, sec. 47-421 et seq.).
       Sec. 113. No part of this appropriation shall be used for 
     publicity or propaganda purposes or implementation of any 
     policy including boycott designed to support or defeat 
     legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature.
       Sec. 114. At the start of the fiscal year, the Mayor shall 
     develop an annual plan, by quarter and by project, for 
     capital outlay borrowings: Provided, That within a reasonable 
     time after the close of each quarter, the Mayor shall report 
     to the Council of the District of Columbia and the Congress 
     the actual borrowings and spending progress compared with 
     projections.
       Sec. 115. The Mayor shall not borrow any funds for capital 
     projects unless the Mayor has obtained prior approval from 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, by resolution, 
     identifying the projects and amounts to be financed with such 
     borrowings.
       Sec. 116. The Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed 
     for capital projects for the operating expenses of the 
     District of Columbia government.
       Sec. 117. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended by reprogramming except pursuant to 
     advance approval of the reprogramming granted according to 
     the procedure set forth in the Joint Explanatory Statement of 
     the Committee of Conference (House Report No. 96-443), which 
     accompanied the District of Columbia Appropriation Act, 1980, 
     approved October 30, 1979 (93 Stat. 713; Public Law 96-93), 
     as modified in House Report No. 98-265, and in accordance 
     with the Reprogramming Policy Act of 1980, effective 
     September 16, 1980 (D.C. Law 3-100; D.C. Code, sec. 47-361 et 
     seq.).
       Sec. 118. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to provide a personal cook, 
     chauffeur, or other personal servants to any officer or 
     employee of the District of Columbia.
       Sec. 119. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     shall be obligated or expended to procure passenger 
     automobiles as defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act 
     of 1980, approved October 10, 1980 (94 Stat. 1824; Public Law 
     96-425; 15 U.S.C. 2001(2)), with an Environmental Protection 
     Agency estimated miles per gallon average of less than 22 
     miles per gallon: Provided, That this section shall not apply 
     to security, emergency rescue, or armored vehicles.
       Sec. 120. (a) Notwithstanding section 422(7) of the 
     District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act of 1973, approved December 24, 1973 (87 
     Stat. 790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(7)), the 
     City Administrator shall be paid, during any fiscal year, a 
     salary at a rate established by the Mayor, not to exceed the 
     rate established for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     5 U.S.C. 5315.
       (b) For purposes of applying any provision of law limiting 
     the availability of funds for payment of salary or pay in any 
     fiscal year, the highest rate of pay established by the Mayor 
     under subsection (a) of this section for any position for any 
     period during the last quarter of calendar year 1995 shall be 
     deemed to be the rate of pay payable for that position for 
     September 30, 1995.
       (c) Notwithstanding section 4(a) of the District of 
     Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945, approved August 2, 1946 
     (60 Stat. 793; Public Law 79-592; D.C. Code, sec. 5-803(a)), 
     the Board of Directors of the District of Columbia 
     Redevelopment Land Agency shall be paid, during any fiscal 
     year, per diem compensation at a rate established by the 
     Mayor.
       Sec. 121. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the 
     provisions of the District of Columbia Government 
     Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978, effective March 3, 
     1979 (D.C. Law 2-139; D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), 
     enacted pursuant to section 422(3) of the District of 
     Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act 
     of 1973, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 790; Public Law 
     93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 1-242(3)), shall apply with respect 
     to the compensation of District of Columbia employees: 
     Provided, That for pay purposes, employees of the District of 
     Columbia government shall not be subject to the provisions of 
     title 5 of the United States Code.
       Sec. 122. The Director of the Department of Administrative 
     Services may pay rentals and repair, alter, and improve 
     rented premises, without regard to the provisions of section 
     322 of the Economy Act of 1932 (Public Law 72-212; 40 U.S.C. 
     278a), upon a determination by the Director, that by reason 
     of circumstances set forth in such determination, the payment 
     of these rents and the execution of this work, without 
     reference to the limitations of section 322, is advantageous 
     to the District in terms of economy, efficiency, and the 
     District's best interest.
       Sec. 123. No later than 30 days after the end of the first 
     quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council 
     of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 1996 revenue 
     estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 
     1996. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997. The officially 
     revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear 
     report.
       Sec. 124. No sole source contract with the District of 
     Columbia government or any agency thereof may be renewed or 
     extended without opening that contract to the competitive 
     bidding process as set forth in section 303 of the District 
     of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985, effective 
     February 21, 1986 (D.C. Law 6-85; D.C. Code, sec. 1-1183.3), 
     except that the District of Columbia Public Schools may renew 
     or extend sole source contracts for which competition is not 
     feasible or practical, provided that the determination as to 
     whether to invoke the competitive bidding process has been 
     made in accordance with duly promulgated Board of Education 
     rules and procedures.
       Sec. 125. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99 
     Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-177), as amended, the term 
     ``program, project, and activity'' shall be synonymous with 
     and refer specifically to each account appropriating Federal 
     funds in this Act, and any sequestration order shall be 
     applied to each of the accounts rather than to the aggregate 
     total of those accounts: Provided, That sequestration orders 
     shall not be applied to any account that is specifically 
     exempted from sequestration by the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, approved December 12, 
     1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-177), as amended.

[[Page H 11647]]

       Sec. 126. In the event a sequestration order is issued 
     pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99 Stat. 1037: 
     Public Law 99-177), as amended, after the amounts 
     appropriated to the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 
     involved have been paid to the District of Columbia, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall pay to the Secretary 
     of the Treasury, within 15 days after receipt of a request 
     therefor from the Secretary of the Treasury, such amounts as 
     are sequestered by the order: Provided, That the 
     sequestration percentage specified in the order shall be 
     applied proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation 
     accounts in this Act that are not specifically exempted from 
     sequestration by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, approved December 12, 1985 (99 Stat. 
     1037; Public Law 99-177), as amended.
       Sec. 127. For the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, 
     the District of Columbia shall pay interest on its quarterly 
     payments to the United States that are made more than 60 days 
     from the date of receipt of an itemized statement from the 
     Federal Bureau of Prisons of amounts due for housing District 
     of Columbia convicts in Federal penitentiaries for the 
     preceding quarter.
       Sec. 128. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     authorize any office, agency or entity to expend funds for 
     programs or functions for which a reorganization plan is 
     required but has not been approved by the Council pursuant to 
     section 422(12) of the District of Columbia Self-Government 
     and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, approved 
     December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 790; Public Law 93-198; D.C. 
     Code, sec. 1-242(12)) and the Governmental Reorganization 
     Procedures Act of 1981, effective October 17, 1981 (D.C. Law 
     4-42; D.C. Code, secs. 1-299.1 to 1-299.7). Appropriations 
     made by this Act for such programs or functions are 
     conditioned on the approval by the Council, prior to October 
     1, 1995, of the required reorganization plans.
       Sec. 129. (a) An entity of the District of Columbia 
     government may accept and use a gift or donation during 
     fiscal year 1996 if--
       (1) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift 
     or donation: Provided, That the Council of the District of 
     Columbia may accept and use gifts without prior approval by 
     the Mayor; and
       (2) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its 
     authorized functions or duties.
       (b) Each entity of the District of Columbia government 
     shall keep accurate and detailed records of the acceptance 
     and use of any gift or donation under subsection (a) of this 
     section, and shall make such records available for audit and 
     public inspection.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the term ``entity of 
     the District of Columbia government'' includes an independent 
     agency of the District of Columbia.
       (d) This section shall not apply to the District of 
     Columbia Board of Education, which may, pursuant to the laws 
     and regulations of the District of Columbia, accept and use 
     gifts to the public schools without prior approval by the 
     Mayor.
       Sec. 130. None of the Federal funds provided in this Act 
     may be used by the District of Columbia to provide for 
     salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the 
     offices of United States Senator or United States 
     Representatives under section 4(d) of the District of 
     Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 
     1979, effective March 10, 1981 (D.C. Law 3-171; D.C. Code, 
     sec. 1-113(d)).


             prohibition against use of funds for abortions

       Sec. 131. (a) In General.--Section 602(a) of the District 
     of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization 
     Act (sec. 1-233(a), D.C. Code), as amended by section 
     108(b)(2) of the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (9);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) enact any act, resolution, or rule which obligates 
     or expends funds of the District of Columbia (without regard 
     to the source of such funds) for any abortion, or which 
     appropriates funds to any facility owned or operated by the 
     District of Columbia in which any abortion is performed, 
     except where the life of the mother would be endangered if 
     the fetus were carried to term, or in cases of forcible rape 
     reported within 30 days to a law enforcement agency, or cases 
     of incest reported to a law enforcement agency or child abuse 
     agency prior to the performance of the abortion.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to acts, resolutions, or rules of the Council of 
     the District of Columbia which take effect in fiscal years 
     beginning with fiscal year 1996.
       Sec. 132. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     be obligated or expended on any proposed change in either the 
     use or configuration of, or on any proposed improvement to, 
     the Municipal Fish Wharf until such proposed change or 
     improvement has been reviewed and approved by Federal and 
     local authorities including, but not limited to, the National 
     Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, and 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, in compliance with 
     applicable local and Federal laws which require public 
     hearings, compliance with applicable environmental 
     regulations including, but not limited to, any amendments to 
     the Washington, D.C. urban renewal plan which must be 
     approved by both the Council of the District of Columbia and 
     the National Capital Planning Commission.
       Sec. 133. (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the 
     Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all 
     equipment and products purchased with funds made available in 
     this Act should be American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each agency of 
     the Federal or District of Columbia government, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 134. No funds made available pursuant to any provision 
     of this Act shall be used to implement or enforce any system 
     of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples whether they 
     are homosexual, lesbian, or heterosexual, including but not 
     limited to registration for the purpose of extending 
     employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples 
     on the same basis such benefits are extended to legally 
     married couples; nor shall any funds made available pursuant 
     to any provision of this Act otherwise be used to implement 
     or enforce D.C. Act 9-188, signed by the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia on April 15, 1992.
       Sec. 135. Sections 431(f) and 433(b)(5) of the District of 
     Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, 
     approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 813; Public Law 93-198; 
     D.C. Code, secs. 11-1524 and title 11, App. 433), are amended 
     to read as follows:
       (a) Section 431(f) (D.C. Code, sec. 11-1524) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(f) Members of the Tenure Commission shall serve without 
     compensation for services rendered in connection with their 
     official duties on the Commission.''.
       (b) Section 433(b)(5) (title 11, App. 433) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(5) Members of the Commission shall serve without 
     compensation for services rendered in connection with their 
     official duties on the Commission.''.
       Sec. 136. Section 451 of the District of Columbia Self-
     Government and Governmental Reorganization Act of 1973, 
     approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 803; Public Law 93-198; 
     D.C. Code, sec. 1-1130), is amended by adding a new 
     subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c)(1) The District may enter into multiyear contracts to 
     obtain goods and services for which funds would otherwise be 
     available for obligation only within the fiscal year for 
     which appropriated.
       ``(2) If the funds are not made available for the 
     continuation of such a contract into a subsequent fiscal 
     year, the contract shall be cancelled or terminated, and the 
     cost of cancellation or termination may be paid from--
       ``(A) appropriations originally available for the 
     performance of the contract concerned;
       ``(B) appropriations currently available for procurement of 
     the type of acquisition covered by the contract, and not 
     otherwise obligated; or
       ``(C) funds appropriated for those payments.
       ``(3) No contract entered into under this section shall be 
     valid unless the Mayor submits the contract to the Council 
     for its approval and the Council approves the contract (in 
     accordance with criteria established by act of the Council). 
     The Council shall be required to take affirmative action to 
     approve the contract within 45 days. If no action is taken to 
     approve the contract within 45 calendar days, the contract 
     shall be deemed disapproved.''.
       Sec. 137. The District of Columbia Real Property Tax 
     Revision Act of 1974, approved September 3, 1974 (88 Stat. 
     1051; D.C. Code, sec. 47-801 et seq.), is amended as follows:
       (1) Section 412 (D.C. Code, sec. 47-812) is amended as 
     follows:
       (A) Subsection (a) is amended by striking the third and 
     fourth sentences and inserting the following sentences in 
     their place: ``If the Council does extend the time for 
     establishing the rates of taxation on real property, it must 
     establish those rates for the tax year by permanent 
     legislation. If the Council does not establish the rates of 
     taxation of real property by October 15, and does not extend 
     the time for establishing rates, the rates of taxation 
     applied for the prior year shall be the rates of taxation 
     applied during the tax year.''.
       (B) A new subsection (a-2) is added to read as follows:
       ``(a-2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of 
     this section, the real property tax rates for taxable real 
     property in the District of Columbia for the tax year 
     beginning October 1, 1995, and ending September 30, 1996, 
     shall be the same rates in effect for the tax year beginning 
     October 1, 1993, and ending September 30, 1994.''.
       (2) Section 413(c) (D.C. Code, sec. 47-815(c)) is repealed.
       Sec. 138. Title 18 U.S.C. 1761(b) is amended by striking 
     the period at the end and inserting the phrase ``or not-for-
     profit organizations.'' in its place.
       Sec. 139. Within 120 days of the effective date of this 
     Act, the Mayor shall submit to the Congress and the Council a 
     report delineating the actions taken by the executive to 
     effect the directives of the Council in this Act, including--
       (1) negotiations with representatives of collective 
     bargaining units to reduce employee compensation;

[[Page H 11648]]

       (2) actions to restructure existing long-term city debt;
       (3) actions to apportion the spending reductions 
     anticipated by the directives of this Act to the executive 
     for unallocated reductions; and
       (4) a list of any position that is backfilled including 
     description, title, and salary of the position.
       Sec. 140. The Board of Education shall submit to the 
     Congress, Mayor, and Council of the District of Columbia no 
     later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the end of each 
     month a report that sets forth--
       (1) current month expenditures and obligations, year-to-
     date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year 
     expenditure projections vs. budget broken out on the basis of 
     control center, responsibility center, agency reporting code, 
     and object class, and for all funds, including capital 
     financing;
       (2) a breakdown of FTE positions and staff for the most 
     current pay period broken out on the basis of control center, 
     responsibility center, and agency reporting code within each 
     responsibility center, for all funds, including capital 
     funds;
       (3) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center, 
     responsibility center, detailed object, and agency reporting 
     code, and for all funding sources;
       (4) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000 
     annually, which contains; the name of each contractor; the 
     budget to which the contract is charged broken out on the 
     basis of control center, responsibility center, and agency 
     reporting code; and contract identifying codes used by the 
     D.C. Public Schools; payments made in the last month and 
     year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total 
     payments made for the contract and any modifications, 
     extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each 
     contract in the last month;
       (5) all reprogramming requests and reports that are 
     required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of 
     Education; and
       (6) changes made in the last month to the organizational 
     structure of the D.C. Public Schools, displaying previous and 
     current control centers and responsibility centers, the names 
     of the organizational entities that have been changed, the 
     name of the staff member supervising each entity affected, 
     and the reasons for the structural change.
       Sec. 141. The University of the District of Columbia shall 
     submit to the Congress, Mayor, and Council of the District of 
     Columbia no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the 
     end of each month a report that sets forth--
       (1) current month expenditures and obligations, year-to-
     date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal year 
     expenditure projections vs. budget broken out on the basis of 
     control center, responsibility center, and object class, and 
     for all funds, including capital financing;
       (2) a breakdown of FTE positions and all employees for the 
     most current pay period broken out on the basis of control 
     center and responsibility center, for all funds, including 
     capital funds.
       (3) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center, 
     responsibility center, detailed object, and for all funding 
     sources;
       (4) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000 
     annually, which contains: the name of each contractor; the 
     budget to which the contract is charged broken out on the 
     basis of control center and responsibility center, and 
     contract identifying codes used by the University of the 
     District of Columbia; payments made in the last month and 
     year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total 
     payments made for the contract and any modifications, 
     extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each 
     contract in the last month;
       (5) all reprogramming requests and reports that have been 
     made by the University of the District of Columbia within the 
     last month in compliance with applicable law; and
       (6) changes made in the last month to the organizational 
     structure of the University of the District of Columbia, 
     displaying previous and current control centers and 
     responsibility centers, the names of the organizational 
     entities that have been changed, the name of the staff member 
     supervising each entity affected, and the reasons for the 
     structural change.
       Sec. 142. (a) The Board of Education of the District of 
     Columbia and the University of the District of Columbia shall 
     annually compile an accurate and verifiable report on the 
     positions and employees in the public school system and the 
     university, respectively. The annual report shall set forth--
       (1) the number of validated schedule A positions in the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools and the University of the 
     District of Columbia for fiscal year 1995, fiscal year 1996, 
     and thereafter on full-time equivalent basis, including a 
     compilation of all positions by control center, 
     responsibility center, funding source, position type, 
     position title, pay plan, grade, and annual salary; and
       (2) a compilation of all employees in the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools and the University of the District of 
     Columbia as of the preceding December 31, verified as to its 
     accuracy in accordance with the functions that each employee 
     actually performs, by control center, responsibility center, 
     agency reporting code, program (including funding source), 
     activity, location for accounting purposes, job title, grade 
     and classification, annual salary, and position control 
     number.
       (b) The annual report required by subsection (a) of this 
     section shall be submitted to the Congress, the Mayor and 
     Council of the District of Columbia, by not later than 
     February 8 of each year.
       Sec. 143. (a) Not later than October 1, 1995, or within 15 
     calendar days after the date of the enactment of the District 
     of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1996, whichever occurs later, 
     and each succeeding year, the Board of Education and the 
     University of the District of Columbia shall submit to the 
     Congress, the Mayor, and Council of the District of Columbia, 
     a revised appropriated funds operating budget for the public 
     school system and the University of the District of Columbia 
     for such fiscal year that is in the total amount of the 
     approved appropriation and that realigns budgeted data for 
     personal services and other-than-personal services, 
     respectively, with anticipated actual expenditures.
       (b) The revised budget required by subsection (a) of this 
     section shall be submitted in the format of the budget that 
     the Board of Education and the University of the District of 
     Columbia submit to the Mayor of the District of Columbia for 
     inclusion in the Mayor's budget submission to the Council of 
     the District of Columbia pursuant to section 442 of the 
     District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act, Public Law 93-198, as amended (D.C. Code, 
     sec. 47-301).
       Sec. 144. The Board of Education, the Board of Trustees of 
     the University of the District of Columbia, the Board of 
     Library Trustees, and the Board of Governors of the D.C. 
     School of Law shall vote on and approve their respective 
     annual or revised budgets before submission to the Mayor of 
     the District of Columbia for inclusion in the Mayor's budget 
     submission to the Council of the District of Columbia in 
     accordance with section 442 of the District of Columbia Self-
     Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Public Law 
     93-198, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 47-301), or before 
     submitting their respective budgets directly to the Council.
       Sec. 145. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
     or regulation, the evaluation process and instruments for 
     evaluating District of Columbia Public Schools employees 
     shall be a non-negotiable item for collective bargaining 
     purposes.
       Sec. 146. (a) No agency, including an independent agency, 
     shall fill a position wholly funded by appropriations 
     authorized by this Act, which is vacant on October 1, 1995, 
     or becomes vacant between October 1, 1995, and September 30, 
     1996, unless the Mayor or independent agency submits a 
     proposed resolution of intent to fill the vacant position to 
     the Council. The Council shall be required to take 
     affirmative action on the Mayor's resolution within 30 
     legislative days. If the Council does not affirmatively 
     approve the resolution within 30 legislative days, the 
     resolution shall be deemed disapproved.
       (b) No reduction in the number of full-time equivalent 
     positions or reduction-in-force due to privatization or 
     contracting out shall occur if the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     established by section 101(a) of the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 
     1995, approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat. 97; Public Law 104-
     8), disallows the full-time equivalent position reduction 
     provided in this act in meeting the maximum ceiling of 35,771 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996.
       (c) This section shall not prohibit the appropriate 
     personnel authority from filling a vacant position with a 
     District government employee currently occupying a position 
     that is funded with appropriated funds.
       (d) This section shall not apply to local school-based 
     teachers, school-based officers, or school-based teachers' 
     aides; or court personnel covered by title 11 of the D.C 
     Code, except chapter 23.
       Sec. 147. (a) Not later than 15 days after the end of every 
     fiscal quarter (beginning October 1, 1995), the Mayor shall 
     submit to the Council a report with respect to the employees 
     on the capital project budget for the previous quarter.
       (b) Each report submitted pursuant to subsection (a) of 
     this section shall include the following information--
       (1) a list of all employees by position, title, grade and 
     step;
       (2) a job description, including the capital project for 
     which each employee is working;
       (3) the date that each employee began working on the 
     capital project and the ending date that each employee 
     completed or is projected to complete work on the capital 
     project; and
       (4) a detailed explanation justifying why each employee is 
     being paid with capital funds.
       Sec. 148. The District of Columbia Government Comprehensive 
     Merit Personnel Act of 1978, effective March 3, 1979 (D.C. 
     Law 2-139; D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), is amended as 
     follows:
       (a) Section 301 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-603.1) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) A new paragraph (13A) is added to read as follows:
       ``(13A) `Nonschool-based personnel' means any employee of 
     the District of Columbia Public Schools who is not based at a 
     local school or who does not provide direct services to 
     individual students.''.
       (2) A new paragraph (15A) is added to read as follows:
       ``(15A) `School administrators' means principals, assistant 
     principals, school program 

[[Page H 11649]]

     directors, coordinators, instructional supervisors, and 
     support personnel of the District of Columbia Public 
     Schools.''.
       (b) Section 801A(b)(2) (D.C. Code, sec. 1-609.1(b)(2)) is 
     amended by adding a new subparagraph (L-i) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(L-i) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Board of Education shall not issue rules that require or 
     permit nonschool-based personnel or school administrators to 
     be assigned or reassigned to the same competitive level as 
     classroom teachers;''
       (c) Section 2402 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-625.2) is amended by 
     adding a new subsection (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Board 
     of Education shall not require or permit nonschool- based 
     personnel or school administrators to be assigned or 
     reassigned to the same competitive level as classroom 
     teachers.''.
       Sec. 149. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     rule, or regulation, an employee of the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools shall be--
       (1) classified as an Educational Service employee'
       (2) placed under the personnel authority of the Board of 
     Education; and
       (3) subject to all Board of Education rules.
       (b) School-based personnel shall constitute a separate 
     competitive area from nonschool-based personnel who shall not 
     compete with school-based personnel for retention purposes.
       Sec. 150. The District of Columbia Government Comprehensive 
     Merit Personnel Act of 1978, effective March 3, 1979 (D.C. 
     Law 2-139; D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), is amended as 
     follows:
       (a) Section 2401 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-625.1) is amended by 
     amending the third sentence to read as follows: ``A personnel 
     authority may establish lesser competitive areas within an 
     agency on the basis of all or a clearly identifiable segment 
     of an agency's mission or a division or major subdivision of 
     an agency.''.
       (b) A new section 2406 is added to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 2406. Abolishment of positions for Fiscal Year 1996.
       ``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     regulation, or collective bargaining agreement either in 
     effect or to be negotiated while this legislation is in 
     effect for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, each 
     agency head is authorized, within the agency head's 
     discretion, to identify positions for abolishment.
       ``(b) Prior to February 1, 1996, each personnel authority 
     shall make a final determination that a position within the 
     personnel authority is to be abolished.
       ``(c) Notwithstanding any rights or procedures established 
     by any other provision of this title, any District government 
     employee, regardless of date of hire, who encumbers a 
     position identified for abolishment shall be separated 
     without competition or assignment rights, except as provided 
     in this section.
       ``(d) An employee effected by the abolishment of a position 
     pursuant to this section who, but for this section would be 
     entitled to compete for retention, shall be entitled to 1 
     round of lateral competition pursuant to Chapter 24 of the 
     District of Columbia Personnel Manual, which shall be limited 
     to positions in the employee's competitive level.
       ``(e) Each employee who is a bona fide resident of the 
     District of Columbia shall have added 5 years to his or her 
     creditable service for reduction-in-force purposes. For 
     purposes of this subsection only, a nonresident District 
     employee who was hired by the District government prior to 
     January 1, 1980, and has not had a break in service since 
     that date, or a former employee of the U.S. Department of 
     Health and Human Services at Saint Elizabeths Hospital who 
     accepted employment with the District government on October 
     1, 1987, and has not had a break in service since that date, 
     shall be considered a District resident.
       ``(f) Each employee selected for separation pursuant to 
     this section shall be given written notice of at least 30 
     days before the effective date of his or her separation.
       ``(g) Neither the establishment of a competitive area 
     smaller than an agency, nor the determination that a specific 
     position is to be abolished, nor separation pursuant to this 
     section shall be subject to review except as follows--
       ``(1) an employee may file a complaint contesting a 
     determination or a separation pursuant to title XV of this 
     Act or section 303 of the Human Rights Act of 1977, effective 
     December 13, 1977 (D.C. Law 2-38; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2543); 
     and
       ``(2) an employee may file with the Office of Employee 
     Appeals an appeal contesting that the separation procedures 
     of subsections (d) and (f) of this section were not properly 
     applied.
       ``(h) An employee separated pursuant to this section shall 
     be entitled to severance pay in accordance with title XI of 
     this Act, except that the following shall be included in 
     computing creditable service for severance pay for employees 
     separated pursuant to this section--
       ``(1) four years for an employee who qualified for 
     veteran's preference under this act, and
       ``(2) three years for an employee who qualified for 
     residency preference under this act.
       ``(i) Separation pursuant to this section shall not affect 
     an employee's rights under either the Agency Reemployment 
     Priority Program or the Displaced Employee Program 
     established pursuant to Chapter 24 of the District Personnel 
     Manual.
       ``(j) The Mayor shall submit to the Council a listing of 
     all positions to be abolished by agency and responsibility 
     center by March 1, 1996, or upon the delivery of termination 
     notices to individual employees.
       ``(k) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1708 or 
     section 2402(d), the provisions of this act shall not be 
     deemed negotiable.
       ``(l) A personnel authority shall cause a 30-day 
     termination notice to be served, no later than September 1, 
     1996, on any incumbent employee remaining in any position 
     identified to be abolished pursuant to subsection (b) of this 
     section''.
       Sec. 151. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     total amount appropriated in this Act for operating expenses 
     for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 1996 under the 
     caption ``Division of Expenses'' shall not exceed 
     $4,867,283,000.


   requiring development of plan to close lorton correctional complex

       Sec. 152. (a) Development of Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than February 15, 1996, the 
     District of Columbia shall develop a plan for closing the 
     Lorton Correctional Complex over a transition period not to 
     exceed 5 years in length.
       (2) Requirements of plan.--The plan developed by the 
     District of Columbia under paragraph (1) shall meet the 
     following requirements:
       (A) Under the plan, the Lorton Correctional Complex will be 
     closed by the expiration of the transition period.
       (B) Under the plan, the District of Columbia may not 
     operate any correctional facilities on the Federal property 
     known as the Lorton Complex located in Fairfax County, 
     Virginia, after the expiration of the transition period.
       (C) The plan shall include provisions specifying how and to 
     what extent the District will utilize alternative management, 
     including the private sector, for the operation of 
     correctional facilities for the District, and shall include 
     provisions describing the treatment under such alternative 
     management (including under contracts) of site selection, 
     design, financing, construction, and operation of 
     correctional facilities for the District.
       (D) The plan shall include an implementation schedule, 
     together with specific performance measures and timelines to 
     determine the extent to which the District is meeting the 
     schedule during the transition period.
       (E) Under the plan, the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
     shall submit a semi-annual report to the President, Congress, 
     and the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority describing the actions taken 
     by the District under the plan, and in addition shall 
     regularly report to the President, Congress, and the District 
     of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority on all significant measures taken under 
     the plan as soon as such measures are taken.
       (b) Consistency With Financial Plan and Budget.--In 
     developing the plan under subsection (a), the District of 
     Columbia shall ensure that for each of the years during which 
     the plan is in effect, the plan shall be consistent with the 
     financial plan and budget for the District of Columbia for 
     the year under subtitle A of title II of the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Act of 1995.
       (c) Submission of Plan.--Upon completing the development of 
     the plan under subsection (a), the District of Columbia shall 
     submit the plan to the President, Congress, and the District 
     of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority.

           Prohibition Against Adoption by Unmarried Couples

       Sec. 153. Section 16-302, D.C. Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any person'' and inserting ``(a) Subject 
     to subsection (b), any person''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following subsection:
       ``(b) No person may join in a petition under this section 
     unless the person is the spouse of the petitioner.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. davis

  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis: Insert at the appropriate 
     place the following new section:


   technical corrections to financial responsibility and management 
                             assistance act

       Sec.   . (a) Requiring GSA To Provide Support Services.--
     Section 103(f) of the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 is 
     amended by striking ``may provide'' and inserting ``shall 
     promptly provide''.
       (b) Availability of Certain Federal Benefits for 
     Individuals Who Become Employed by the Authority.--
       (1) Former federal employees.--Subsection (e) of section 
     102 of such Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Preservation of Retirement and Certain Other Rights 
     of Federal Employees Who Become Employed by the Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any Federal employee who becomes 
     employed by the Authority--

[[Page H 11650]]

       ``(A) may elect, for the purposes set forth in paragraph 
     (2)(A), to be treated, for so long as that individual remains 
     continuously employed by the Authority, as if such individual 
     had not separated from service with the Federal Government, 
     subject to paragraph (3); and
       ``(B) shall, if such employee subsequently becomes 
     reemployed by the Federal Government, be entitled to have 
     such individual's service with the Authority treated, for 
     purposes of determining the appropriate leave accrual rate, 
     as if it had been service with the Federal Government.
       ``(2) Effect of an election.--An election made by an 
     individual under the provisions of paragraph (1)(A)--
       ``(A) shall qualify such individual for the treatment 
     described in such provisions for purposes of--
       ``(i) chapter 83 or 84 of title 5, United States Code, as 
     appropriate (relating to retirement), including the Thrift 
     Savings Plan;
       ``(ii) chapter 87 of such title (relating to life 
     insurance); and
       ``(iii) chapter 89 of such title (relating to health 
     insurance); and
       ``(B) shall disqualify such individual, while such election 
     remains in effect, from participating in the programs offered 
     by the government of the District of Columbia (if any) 
     corresponding to the respective programs referred to in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Conditions for an election to be effective.--An 
     election made by an individual under paragraph (1)(A) shall 
     be ineffective unless--
       ``(A) it is made before such individual separates from 
     service with the Federal Government; and
       ``(B) such individual's service with the Authority 
     commences within 3 days after so separating (not counting any 
     holiday observed by the government of the District of 
     Columbia).
       ``(4) Contributions.--If an individual makes an election 
     under paragraph (1)(A), the Authority shall, in accordance 
     with applicable provisions of law referred to in paragraph 
     (2)(A), be responsible for making the same deductions from 
     pay and the same agency contributions as would be required if 
     it were a Federal agency.
       ``(5) Regulations.--Any regulations necessary to carry out 
     this subsection shall be prescribed by--
       ``(A) the Office of Personnel Management, to the extent 
     that any program administered by the Office is involved;
       ``(B) the appropriate office or agency of the government of 
     the District of Columbia, to the extent that any program 
     administered by such office or agency is involved; and
       ``(C) the Executive Director referred to in section 8474 of 
     title 5, United States Code, to the extent that the Thrift 
     Savings Plan is involved.''.
       (2) Other individuals.--Section 102 of such Act is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Federal Benefits for Others.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Office of Personnel Management, in 
     conjunction with each corresponding office or agency of the 
     government of the District of Columbia, shall prescribe 
     regulations under which any individual who becomes employed 
     by the Authority (under circumstances other than as described 
     in subsection (e)) may elect either--
       ``(A) to be deemed a Federal employee for purposes of the 
     programs referred to in subsection (e)(2)(A)(i)-(iii); or
       ``(B) to participate in 1 or more of the corresponding 
     programs offered by the government of the District of 
     Columbia.
       ``(2) Effect of an election.--An individual who elects the 
     option under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) shall 
     be disqualified, while such election remains in effect, from 
     participating in any of the programs referred to in the other 
     such subparagraph.
       ``(3) Definition of `corresponding office or agency'.--For 
     purposes of paragraph (1), the term `corresponding office or 
     agency of the government of the District of Columbia' means, 
     with respect to any program administered by the Office of 
     Personnel Management, the office or agency responsible for 
     administering the corresponding program (if any) offered by 
     the government of the District of Columbia.
       ``(4) Thrift savings plan.--To the extent that the Thrift 
     Savings Plan is involved, the preceding provisions of this 
     subsection shall be applied by substituting `the Executive 
     Director referred to in section 8474 of title 5, United 
     States Code' for `the Office of Personnel Management'.''.
       (3) Effective date; additional election for former federal 
     employees serving on date of enactment; election for 
     employees appointed during interim period.--
       (A) Effective date.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, there shall be prescribed (and take 
     effect)--
       (i) regulations to carry out the amendments made by this 
     subsection; and
       (ii) any other regulations necessary to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (B) Additional election for former federal employees 
     serving on date of enactment.--
       (i) In general.--Any former Federal employee employed by 
     the Authority on the effective date of the regulations 
     referred to in subparagraph (A)(i) may, within such period as 
     may be provided for under those regulations, make an election 
     similar, to the maximum extent practicable, to the election 
     provided for under section 102(e) of the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 
     1995, as amended by this subsection. Such regulations shall 
     be prescribed jointly by the Office of Personnel 
     Management and each corresponding office or agency of the 
     government of the District of Columbia (in the same manner 
     as provided for in section 102(f) of such Act, as so 
     amended).
       (ii) Exception.--An election under this subparagraph may 
     not be made by any individual who--
       (I) is not then participating in a retirement system for 
     Federal employees (disregarding Social Security); or
       (II) is then participating in any program of the government 
     of the District of Columbia referred to in section 
     102(e)(2)(B) of such Act (as so amended).
       (C) Election for employees appointed during interim 
     period.--
       (i) From the federal government.--Subsection (e) of section 
     102 of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Act of 1995 (as last in effect before 
     the date of enactment of this Act) shall be deemed to have 
     remained in effect for purposes of any Federal employee who 
     becomes employed by the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority during the 
     period beginning on such date of enactment and ending on the 
     day before the effective date of the regulations prescribed 
     to carry out subparagraph (B).
       (ii) Other individuals.--The regulations prescribed to 
     carry out subsection (f) of section 102 of the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Act of 1995 (as amended by this subsection) shall include 
     provisions under which an election under such subsection 
     shall be available to any individual who--
       (I) becomes employed by the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority during the 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     ending on the day before the effective date of such 
     regulations;
       (II) would have been eligible to make an election under 
     such regulations had those regulations been in effect when 
     such individual became so employed; and
       (III) is not then participating in any program of the 
     government of the District of Columbia referred to in 
     subsection (f)(1)(B) of such section 102 (as so amended).
       (c) Exemption From Liability for Claims for Authority 
     Employees.--Section 104 of such Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``the Authority and its members'' and 
     inserting ``the Authority, its members, and its employees''; 
     and
       (2) by striking ``the District of Columbia'' and inserting 
     ``the Authority or its members or employees or the District 
     of Columbia''.
       (d) Permitting Review of Emergency Legislation.--Section 
     203(a)(3) of such Act is amended by striking subparagraph 
     (C).

  Mr. DAVIS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Davis] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the District of Columbia Subcommittee of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, I offer this 
amendment to the District of Columbia appropriations bill of 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the District of Columbia 
appropriations bill of 1996, H.R. 2546, as chairman of the District of 
Columbia Subcommittee of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. 
I also offer this amendment as chief sponsor of Public Law 104-8, the 
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
Authority, H.R. 1345.
  This Congress can take great pride in the landmark legislation we 
enacted this past spring for the District of Columbia. Public Law 104-
8, which passed unanimously, averted a financial catastrophe and put 
the Nation's Capital on a glidepath towards economic recovery. It is an 
honor for me to be presiding as chairman of the District's Oversight 
Subcommittee, the Authorizing Subcommittee, at this historic time. Not 
only the District, but the Washington metropolitan region, and the 
entire country all share a vital stake in the successful outcome of 
what we have initiated. The amendment that I offer today is not only 
consistent with what we began but necessary to carry forward the work 
of the new Authority.
  The amendment is technical in nature, and conforms to the legislative 
intent of Public Law 104-8. The substance of the amendment is 
noncontroversial. It is being offered as an amendment to the 
appropriations bill in order to expedite the technical corrections that 
are 

[[Page H 11651]]

required to enable the Authority to operate in the most efficient 
manner possible and to fulfill its responsibilities. The amendment does 
nothing more than to give the Authority tools to do the job mandated by 
Congress.
  1. The amendment changes section 102(e)(1)(A) to insure, as intended 
by the legislation, the Federal employees joining the Authority may 
elect to have their service with the Authority treated as if performed 
within the Federal Government for purposes of the thrift savings plan, 
health insurance, life insurance, and any other Federal benefit 
program. The statute already provides such persons that election for 
purposes of the Federal retirement program. The omission of the 
other programs in the statutory language was clearly inadvertent.

  2. The amendment changes section 102(e)(2)(B) to clarify 
congressional intent and make clear that an individual electing 
coverage under the Federal programs referred to in section 102(e)(1)(A) 
will not be entitled to double coverage under comparable District 
Government programs. This change merely conforms the sections.
  3. The amendment changes section 102(e)(3) to provide that the Office 
of Personnel Management, in promulgating regulations authorized by 
section 102(e) must consult with the Authority as well as with the 
District government. This change is necessary because when OPM first 
promulgated interim regulations, as it was authorized by the statute to 
do, it failed to consult with the Authority or even send on its own 
initiative a copy of the proposed regulations to the Authority. This 
change is consistent with the clear legislative intent in the statute 
that the Authority should be consulted.
  4. The amendment changes section 102(f) in order to carry out the 
policy mandate created in section 102(e). It clarifies that persons 
employed by the Authority have an election to be treated as if they 
were employees of the Federal Government or employees of the District 
of Columbia government for purposes of the retirement system, health 
insurance, and any other employee benefit programs. Section 102(e) 
deals only with employees of the Authority who come from the Federal 
Government. Several other categories of persons are becoming employees 
of the Authority, including Federal retirees, District employees, and 
private sector employees. This new section gives these employees the 
same options as persons joining the Authority from the Federal 
Government. It will help to insure that qualified employees will not be 
discouraged from seeking employment with the Authority by clarifying 
legislative intent so as to provide that such persons would not lose 
benefits.
  5. The amendment changes ``may'' to ``shall'' in section 103(f) to 
give the General Services Administration the appropriate degree of 
discretion. This clarifies that the GSA has a duty to provide the 
administrative services required by the Authority in a prompt manner.
  6. The amendment changes section 104 because the Authority is a legal 
entity subject to suit. A plaintiff could thus initiate a cause of 
action against the Authority, its members, or employees for official 
actions they take, instead of suing the District of Columbia. Only 
claims against the District are included in the technical language of 
the existing exemption. This was not intended in adopting the statute, 
as the purpose of the section is to protect the Authority and those who 
act on its behalf from claims arising from their official actions.
  7. The amendment deletes section 203(a)(3)(C) in its entirety, as it 
inadvertently undermines the fundamental responsibilities of the 
Authority, contrary to the clear legislative intent of the statute as a 
whole. A significant amount of District legislation is now being 
enacted on an emergency basis, thus making it exempt from the 
Authority's power to consider under the existing section. Even if a 
particular enactment is later made permanent, thus subjecting it to the 
Authority's review, rights could in the meantime be created or claimed 
under the emergency legislation and objections asserted to any 
subsequent disapproval by the Authority. This would frustrate the very 
purpose of creating the Authority. Emergency legislation can clearly 
have a substantial fiscal impact while it is in force and effect. The 
current section is not only an undesirable and significant dilution of 
the Authority's ability to function, but it also casts doubt on the 
Authority's ability to require that emergency legislation be reviewed, 
separate and apart from the issue of approval or disapproval. 
Eliminating this section would remove any doubt as to legislative 
intent on this point and enhance the authority's basic ability to 
function in accordance with its congressional mandate.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, the minority has no objections to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                 amendment no. 1 offered by mr. bonilla

  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bonilla: Insert on page 58, after 
     line 4, the following section:


REVOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX-EXEMPTION FOR NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

       Sec.   . Effective for taxable years beginning after 
     September 30, 1995, section 4 of the act entitled ``An Act to 
     incorporate the National Education Association of the United 
     States'', Approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 805; Sec. 46-1036, 
     D.C. Code) is repealed.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] 
is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a bipartisan amendment. It is being led 
on the other side by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], as well 
as getting a tremendous amount of assistance and hard work on this 
amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment that would allow the 
District of Columbia to collect an additional $1.6 million in badly 
needed revenue for their operations.
  My amendment would eliminate the special exemption, the special 
privilege currently granted under a congressional charter to the 
National Education Association. This is an amendment that would reserve 
a special privilege that has been on the books for a long time.
  Mr. Chairman, the NEA was officially judged to be a union by the 
Internal Revenue Service, but nonetheless it is put in a special 
category aside from other unions that all pay taxes in the District of 
Columbia. So, we are trying to simply give the District of Columbia the 
privilege of levying local property taxes on the National Education 
Association.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that we are not in any way 
singling out the NEA for any kind of special target or treatment. Other 
unions like the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, they all pay taxes. The 
American Federation of Teachers pays taxes. We would not want these 
groups to have a local special-privilege exemption like the NEA any 
more than we would want the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to have an 
exemption or the NFIB or any group that would currently exist for 
similar purposes that is advocating positions here and in neighborhoods 
across the country.
  There is no other group currently on the list of congressionally 
chartered organizations that is not a charity that falls under this 
exemption. In other words, the NEA is the only noncharity 
congressionally chartered organization that receives this special 
treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, the NEA has also violated its original congressional 
charter by no longer just limiting itself to educational issues. Back 
in the early part of the century when it was chartered, it was 
originally set up to work on the basics: Reading, writing, and 
arithmetic. Now, we have the NEA working on issues from arms control to 
the NAFTA controversy, Medicare, human rights, defense issues. My 
colleagues can name it, they are involved in it; none of which has to 
do with education in our schools across this country.
  Mr. Chairman, for that reason, setting it aside from the other 
congressionally chartered groups in this country, they have violated 
their charter, and we strongly are urging Members on both sides of the 
aisle in a bipartisan way to support this amendment that would allow 
the District to have an opportunity to levy the badly needed $1.5 
million needed for its budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

[[Page H 11652]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it 
basically is mean-spirited. Republicans have the majority in this House 
and they can offer a freestanding bill to do anything they want and not 
attach it to this.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say sincerely that I have great 
respect for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla]. The gentleman 
served on the Committee on the District of Columbia for some time. We 
have discussed ideas that might improve the District and we have 
certainly worked together.
  But Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas says that the rest of the 
list is charities. That is not true. The American Pharmaceutical 
Association is not a charity. The Brookings Institute is not a charity. 
The National Academy of Sciences is not a charity. Mr. Chairman, I can 
go on and on.
  This was a charter granted by the Federal Government when there was 
no home rule here in 1906, and it was obviously a charter granted for 
incorporation purposes. In that, right or wrong, the Congress at that 
time gave a tax exempt status as it relates to District of Columbia 
taxes.
  The gentleman from Texas said in his opening comments that this 
amendment was promulgated because the gentleman wants to save money and 
is interested in the taxpayers. Nobody believes that. That is not what 
this is about. The gentleman is not trying to provide $1.4 million to 
the District. Even if he was, the cap that the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Walsh] has put on here would prohibit it.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas should not come to the 
floor and say that he is trying to raise money for the District. The 
fact is that the gentleman does not, and the Speaker does not, like the 
philosophy of the NEA.
  That is not wrong. So, therefore, they come to the conclusion that 
they have violated their charter and without a hearing of the 
appropriate committee, we will just stand up and cancel this tax 
exemption. The gentleman may be right on the merits. After an 
adjudication of this issue, after consideration of all 27 of the 
organizations that have this, the gentleman may be absolutely right. 
Mr. Chairman, I am saying that as a member of the subcommittee, this is 
not the forum to address their tax status.
  Even if we do, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should not come here and 
say that he is trying to raise revenue for the District. It just ain't 
so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I went to public schools in a small town in 
Louisiana, in a school that would not be one that we would point to for 
its physical plant, in a small school in which those within the 
community quite often ended up baking cakes and having car washes just 
to have enough money to send a debate team out of town.
  But it had one extraordinary resource. It had a group of men and 
women who were so committed to the ideals of education above everything 
else that they made personal financial sacrifices. They made sacrifices 
to the time of their own family by grading papers. They made sacrifices 
to attend dances and balls when they did not yet have kids old enough 
to go to those same high schools. And they made an incredible imprint 
on the community.
  To the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], in my high school class 
is a young lady who is now the director of Common Cause. In my high 
school class is a former vice president of Johnson & Johnson. In my 
high school class is a gentleman who received balloting in the Heisman 
Trophy. And all of them taught by a handful of dedicated teachers. But 
the gentleman just touched upon the change that has occurred: 
philosophy.
  What the gentleman said was that this side of the aisle disagrees 
with the philosophy, and I do, too. Only I am not talking about the 
left and the right. I am talking about placing issues above education. 
That is a bad philosophy.
  When I last ran for Congress, I got a brochure from the NEA asking me 
how I felt about the nuclear freeze, how I felt about abortion. How I 
felt about issues that while very important and worth the time of this 
Chamber were not as important as what should have been going on in the 
classrooms of my State in the district.
  I represent a great deal of teaching and educational background to 
where I am proud to say I worked hard and did well with the support of 
teachers and parents.
  Now, it is wrong, and I was taught by teachers who taught me to look 
at the facts and determine in a very substantive and objective way, it 
is wrong to use an exemption given in 1906 when Theodore Roosevelt was 
President to protect the assets of a union that in 1978 determined as 
such by the Internal Revenue Service. It is wrong to reverse the 
concept of taxation without representation and make it representation 
without taxation.
  We want to lobby. We want to go in your office. We want to tell you 
how to vote. We want to send you faxes. We want to send you letters 
just like today, but we do not want to pay or give a dime.
  That is an insult to the people who taught me and even more an insult 
to the values and lessons that I learned in public schools in my home 
town.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I do not serve on the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia. When I saw the rule coming forth on this 
amendment, I had to make a special point to come down here and to 
listen firsthand to the arguments from those who supported the 
justification of this change.
  My colleague from Louisiana who just spoke indicated that here is a 
group that comes to this office asking for support on this issue, that 
issue. Well, I will tell Members, if we went to the Federal tax code 
and deleted the tax exemption of every organization that lobbied us, 
from defense contractors to the Chamber, you name it, we would raise 
billions of dollars and we would never see anyone in the Halls of 
Congress or in our offices.
  But as Americans, as the delegate from the District said, there is a 
Constitution. There is a Constitution that talks about freedom of 
speech. And I think we want people to do that. We want people to come 
forward and talk to us about the issues of the day. But I view this 
amendment as probably the most vindictive that I have seen in my tenure 
here before this body.
  Many, in fact all the years except this year, I was in the majority 
party. There were groups that we did not like who opposed our 
candidates, who opposed our position on issues. Did my colleagues see 
the majority party, the Democrats at that point, come forth with 
amendments to repeal their tax exempt status? No. That would not be 
right. We might disagree with them, but they have a right to say what 
they want to say.
  But here we go, the first time you folks have had the majority in 
years, using the majority muscle that you have to punish one group in 
this country that you disagree with. I think that is a shame.
  If you look at the other organizations that are not touched by the 
gentleman's amendment, as the chairman, said, they are not charities. 
They are not charitable organizations. I am looking at one here, the 
Medical Society of the District of Columbia. Is that a charitable 
organization? I doubt it. But I do not think and I would not support 
taking away their exempt status because they endorsed your Medicare 
cuts.
  Shame on you. Shame on you.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan], a cosponsor and a Member who was really behind 
this cause for some time.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, if I could refer in opening to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], and 
I do mean distinguished, he does not have to ever worry about me having 
hidden agendas or any other motives. But I have listened to some 
private conversations 

[[Page H 11653]]

where people thoughtfully and heartfelt said, hey, in the measure we 
saved the taxpayers a lot of money here.
  I said during general debate that my younger brother, in whom I am 
justifiably proud because his students for 29 years, at the 
discouragement of the administration, have unofficially elected him 
best teacher on his high school campus. Dick Dornan is a natural 
giving, enthusiastic English and U.S. history teacher. He is disgusted 
with the NEA. He does not like being pressured to declare an entire 
month bisexuality month. That is just for openers. I am not going to 
mention all the other stuff, just the AC/DC, acey-deucey switch hitting 
crowd. What does that have to do with education?
  I will not mention the 1906 charter. We have covered that. I will not 
mention some of the good points that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bonilla] has covered about switching 501(c)(3) to 501(5). I will not go 
back over ancient history, although I will ask permission to put that 
in my remarks.
  The very real reason that the NEA become unionized was in order, as a 
retired teacher said, who took a break in service, when he came back 
and found it was now a union, he said, I suddenly realized that all 
they obsessed on were salaries and money and money and salaries and not 
about kids' education and teaching or the SAT scores would not have 
been going in the dumper, and we would have our dynamic Speaker quoting 
around this country that kids are getting diplomas from high school and 
they cannot even read the English on the diploma, let alone talk about 
where they are going to go with their careers or how they are going to 
balance their checkbooks.
  It is true there are a number of organizations and enterprises within 
the District of Columbia that benefit from property taxes. What is so 
incredible is that the NEA is the only union that gets that privileged 
status. More about that from the distinguished Member from Indiana.
  I close on this, vote for Bonilla-Hayes-Dornan. Repeal the NEA's 
congressionally sanctioned property tax. The taxpayers should not be 
expected to subsidize the palatial, plush headquarters of any union, 
much less one that wants a month for bisexuality advancement.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bonilla-Hayes-Dornan 
amendment.
  As Mr. Bonilla said the NEA is currently exempt from having to pay 
any property taxes on their palatial headquarters located here in 
Washington, DC. Their tax-exempt status derives from the Federal 
charter the NEA received back in 1906, when it was little more than an 
association of educators throughout the United States. At that time, 
and I have read some of the debate that took place in both Chambers 
during consideration of the NEA charter, then Members of Congress felt 
that it would be improper to tax property held for educational 
purposes.
  Back then, I am certain that no one envisioned the NEA would ever 
evolve into anything more than a bipartisan, do-good organization 
dedicated to promoting education in America. But times sure have 
changed, Mr. Chairman, and so has the NEA. Today the NEA is not now an 
association of professional educators. In 1978, they changed their 
corporate tax status from a 501(c)(3) to a 501(5) benefiting all labor 
unions. The NEA is now a hostile political machine that wields its 
incredible power to influence legislation, public opinion, and our 
Nation's school children.
  The very reason the NEA became unionized was in order for them to 
gain the maximum amount of political power and control in Washington 
and throughout the United States. In fact, back when the NEA was 
changing into a labor union, a retired teacher who took a break in 
service recalls their radical transformation claimed, ``In the interval 
that I had been out of school, they had become unionized, and when they 
realized that I refused to join. They no longer represented my views. 
They had become more concerned with salaries and money than they were 
about students and education.'' Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, its archaic 
congressional charter continues to allow the NEA its property tax 
exemption as if this power political machine were still an innocuous 
teachers association.
  It is true that there are a number of organizations and enterprises 
within the District of Columbia that benefit from a property tax 
exemption. What's so incredible is that the NEA is the only labor union 
in the whole bunch. And so when opponents of our amendment complain 
that we are singling out the NEA for political reasons, I say they are 
completely missing the point. The NEA does not deserve this tax break 
because they are a union, the country's biggest union in fact, and no 
other union enjoys such preferential tax treatment in the District of 
Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the height of irony--and it is exactly the kind 
of insidiousness this new Congress is attempting to undo--that the NEA, 
a monstrous special interest group dedicated, as they would say, ``to 
helping America's children,'' ferociously clings to $1.4 million each 
year that otherwise could be used to improve the District's 
impoverished public school system.
  I strongly urge you to vote in favor of the Bonilla-Hayes-Dornan 
amendment and repeal the NEA's congressionally-sanctioned property tax 
exemption. The taxpayers should not be expected to subsidize the plush 
headquarters of any union, much less the NEA.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], a member of the committee.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake, a pattern is clearly 
emerging. The Republican soldiers in the Gingrich revolution have no 
respect whatsoever for freedom of expression in this country. If they 
can find an opportunity to close down speech and ideas which they find 
repulsive, they will grab at it. Six screwballs decide to burn the 
American flag, and the Gingrich revolutionaries want to amend the Bill 
of Rights for the first time in our history. Garrison Keillor makes fun 
of them on Prairie Home Companion, they want to close down National 
Public Radio.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] becomes exercised because 
some lobby group does not agree with him. He wants to close down any 
opportunity for them to receive Federal funds. And today the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], who has an axe to grind with the National 
Education Association, said, I know how to take care of them, hit them 
in their tax status.
  If your ideas are so good, so right, so American, why are you so 
afraid of freedom of expression? The National Education Association has 
said things that I disagree with, as have many of the organizations 
here. But to go after these organizations, to close down their 
operations, make them more expensive, impose more taxes on them is 
downright unAmerican.
  It is the nature of politics. It is the nature of Government to have 
the free exchange of ideas. Why is it once the Republicans get in 
control they want to turn off the microphones? They want to shut down 
the presses. They want to stop the free exchange of ideas.
  What are you afraid of? Let us defeat this terrible amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no particular interest in this 
amendment except that, when we considered it in the full Committee on 
Appropriations, it was evident to me that in 1906 the NEA got a special 
charter from the Federal Government as an education association devoted 
to the cause of education. Over time, that purpose has apparently 
changed. It has become, and no one doubts the status of the NEA, a 
labor union devoted to the interests of its members.
  In 1978, under the Carter administration, not a Republican 
administration, it was determined that in fact it was a labor union 
devoted to its own purposes and not to the general cause of education. 
So, for the last 17 years, the NEA has had a special status where it 
did not have to pay taxes even though every other union in the District 
of Columbia had to pay taxes on its property--17 years for free.
  The gentleman from Illinois, my colleague from Illinois, says that we 
are disrupting freedom of expression? They have had free expression 
without paying the cost that everybody else has paid for all these 
years.
  Are we singling them out? No, they are the only union that has this 
status. It seems to me that it is up to Congress, when it finds these 
kinds of things, to address them. They do not deserve tax-exempt 
status. They have not deserved it for 17 years. It is time to close the 
door and to say, you have had 17 free years. You do not get any more. 
You have to be treated just like everyone else.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.

[[Page H 11654]]

  I make these remarks before asking the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bonilla] to consent to a better idea. This Trojan horse, I am afraid, 
would be of no use to the district, if the gentleman is sincere and 
there is a way to help us. The comments, however, especially of the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Hayes], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], give evidence 
to the fact that this is an unvarnished case of political retribution. 
They have not sought to hide it.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], when he offered the 
amendment, went down the list of positions that NEA had taken, among 
them that we hear: That of course is a union. We know how the other 
side of the aisle loves unions. It does not want anything to do with 
the District and certainly not with helping the District. If so, the 
gentleman would have given the District the discretion to get these 
property taxes from all 27 of these people, none of whom should have 
had property taxes at our expense. My people pay higher property taxes, 
not because of the NEA but because of 27 people whom you gave, you gave 
the right to be exempt from property taxes from people I represent.
  The gentleman says that these people are not about education anymore 
and that they have gone off their charter. Have you looked at the 
legislative agenda of the American Legion? Is that what you want to do, 
go down and see what each of these organizations are doing and put a 
political test into these proceedings? This is not a good precedent to 
set.
  This was defeated in committee. There is a better idea. Give the 
District the jurisdiction, do not give it to us piecemeal. You do not 
intend to give us any more at all, do not give us one. Give us all, 
give us access to our property taxes from all 27 of these folks.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. chairman, I rise and speak out in support 
of this amendment. The NEA receives 1.6 million in a tax break from 
their congressional charter. This congressional charter was given to 
the National Education Association when it was a trade association, and 
it is not only quite apparent to the American public but as well to the 
IRS that it is no longer a trade association. It is, indeed, a union.
  As has been said multiple times but deserves to be said again, it 
would be irresponsible for this Congress to continue to allow this tax 
exempt status for a union when no other unions get a tax exempt status. 
Indeed, this $1.6 million of funds could be applied to the District of 
Columbia's school system to help improve their school system. So I 
think this is a very good amendment. It is very much an appropriate 
amendment. It is in keeping with being consistent in our policies. I 
would encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] for yielding this time to me.
  I, too, am not a member of the Subcommittee on the District of 
Columbia, but I am privileged to stand here and to support the measure 
that I feel is the correct one, and that is to oppose this retribution, 
and that is all it can be classified as.
  Let me go to perhaps the heart of the matter, and what I hear being 
discussed, and all of the disparagement directed toward the National 
Education Association. My understanding is that the building that is 
here is peopled by a significant number of individuals, some who come 
here from around the country, others who are here on a regular basis, 
and my belief is that they make a major contribution to the well-being 
of the District of Columbia, perhaps a more major contribution than the 
micromanagement that is going on now.
  Who else are exempt from taxes in the District of Columbia and why? I 
would not bother to be facetious enough to suggest that there are 
Government-owned properties in the District of Columbia that, had they 
been taxed over this same number of years, the District of Columbia may 
conceivably not have the kinds of problems that it is having today. 
None of us would stand for the type of micromanagement that is going on 
in this particular bill in our respective home cities.
  Mr. Chairman, this type of retribution is retrogressive, and in the 
final analysis, Mr. Chairman, downright insulting to any of our 
Members. I do not know what the Brookings Institution stands for. I do 
not know what the Carnegie Institution of Washington, DC, stands for. I 
do not know what the Daughters of the American Revolution stand for, 
but I can doggone cite I do not believe they stand for much that I 
believe in, but at the very same time I think they have a right to be 
here, I think they have a right to state their position, and the tax 
exemption that was given to them was evidently given with well meaning.
  We need to stop this micromanagement, we need to stop this 
retribution, especially toward such an outstanding organization as the 
National Education Association.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my colleague 
from Florida it is our responsibility as the Congress, because this is 
the Nation's Capital, to keep an eye on what goes on here, so we do 
involve ourselves in managing this city, and we better because it was a 
real mess just a year ago.
  Now let me just say to one of my colleagues from Illinois that spoke 
awhile ago; he said we are opposing the free speech. The NEA can say 
anything they want to, and they do, and we do not object, but we do 
believe they should not get a $1.6 million tax break just because they 
are the only union in this city that gets that tax break, the only one. 
And so they should not get that tax break.
  Now I want to read to my colleagues something that was in the 
Indianapolis Star newspaper editorial just a week ago because this 
really upsets me. It says:

       This summer the NEA annual convention passed a resolution 
     supporting a month-long celebration ``as a means of 
     acknowledging the contributions of lesbians, gays and 
     bisexuals throughout history.''
       The celebration was the brain child of Rodney Wilson, a gay 
     high school teacher from St. Louis. What Wilson wanted in 
     this October and every subsequent October, was for public 
     high schools to focus on a gay curriculum detailing the 
     history of homosexual persecution and acknowledging the 
     homosexuality of some historical figures.
       The latter alone should give parents the jitters. According 
     to a Concerned Women of America ad, the Alyson Almanac, ``the 
     fact book of the lesbian and gay community,'' claims some 
     research indicates that Jesus Christ, Winston Churchill and 
     George Washington were homosexuals.
       According to Newsweek magazine, ``not a single school 
     district in the nation accepted the history month idea or a 
     proposed gay curriculum. Even the NEA has gotten skittish 
     after hundreds of teachers threatened to quit when the 
     resolution passed in July.''
       The Concerned Women organization was right to target the 
     NEA action and any move to promote a gay history month. 
     Comparing such a month, as some advocates have done, to Black 
     History Month is an affront to social consciousness and 
     common sense.
       Public education has embraced one foolishness after another 
     in recent decades, but parents should scream bloody murder at 
     the first sign a school in their district is prepared to 
     adopt this latest.

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, if anyone had any doubt that this amendment 
is directed at the speech, the views, of the NEA, that should have been 
removed by the comments just made by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Burton] who is clearly motivated in going after the NEA because he does 
not like what they think or say. So lest there be any doubt, this 
amendment is a clear, I think absolutely unashamed, act of 
discrimination, picking out 1 organization among 27 that has the same 
status because many in the majority do not like what they think or say. 
It is a tour de force as it is seen together with many other things 
going on around here right now in the suppression of opposing points of 
view.
  Mr. Chairman, it started early in the year with the majority leader 
sending letters to organizations complaining if 

[[Page H 11655]]

they made charitable donations to organizations that the majority did 
not like. We are seeing it in the effort being made by the gentlemen 
from Oklahoma, and Maryland, and Indiana to suppress the ability not 
just of nonprofit organizations, but of many groups and individuals in 
this country to exercise their rights under the first amendment to the 
Constitution, masquerading that effort as if it had to do with the 
misuse of Federal funds when, in fact, we are going after the use of 
private funds for free political expression, and now this expedient and 
cynical effort to attack yet another enemy of this new and vindictive 
majority.
  Mr. Chairman, this is part and parcel of freedom of expression. We 
have to be willing to hear some things we do not like if all of us are 
going to have the freedom to engage in our constitutionally protected 
right and responsibility to help shape this great democracy. This is a 
thinly veiled, if veiled at all, effort to get even, and when we are 
trying to get even based upon the content of someone else's or some 
other organization's position, their thought, their speech, we should 
all be deeply worried about the future of a robust democracy.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a Member who has worked very hard on this 
amendment.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I heard my 
colleague from Colorado, my colleague from Illinois, just a moment ago 
talk about cynical ploys and that it is un-American to disagree with 
someone else's point of view, and that is not the point at all. The 
point here is just about them paying their property taxes. There is a 
million six that they are not paying.
  The AFL-CIO pays their property taxes. The Teamsters pay their 
property taxes. The American Federation of Teachers pays their fair 
share on property taxes. We can disagree, and we can have a honest 
disagreement in ideology. All we are saying is, ``Pay your property 
taxes.'' That is all this is about.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a simple amendment. It says the NEA should pay 
their property taxes. Now I see why Forbes magazine not too long ago 
called the NEA not the National Education Association, but the National 
Extortion Association. That more accurately depicts what the NEA really 
stands for.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I think everything has been said that 
needs to be said on this issue. The NEA is clearly in violation of 
their original intended purpose when their tax exemption was granted. 
It is time for us to be honest about this issue. I do think that there 
are some other institutions that are in the city of Washington, DC, 
that we should probably look at in the future, but this is a good 
start.
  I do though want to emphasize that Members of our side of the aisle 
will be eager and ready to work with Members of the other side of the 
aisle in ferreting out some of these other institutions that have 
property tax exemptions, and let us get them to start paying property 
taxes to the city of Washington, DC, because the city needs the revenue 
and needs the money.
  So in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should all 
support this Bonilla amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close on this amendment by 
pointing out very clearly that no one who is supporting this amendment 
is opposed to free speech in this country. There is no American in this 
country that supports free speech as strongly as I do. What we have 
here is the philosophical difference. Those of us who are supporting an 
amendment and other issues similar to this in this Congress are tired 
of groups that have opinions of feeding at the public trough and then 
using that money to advocate political positions. I believe the NEA 
should thrive and survive and have a long life beyond this day to 
advocate the positions that they feel strongly about, absolutely. What 
I do not think they should do is use public money or have special 
privileges in order to advocate those positions.
  As my colleagues know, there is one sense that the American people 
believe in very strongly in this country, and that is fairness, 
fairness. There is no other union that has this special tax exemption. 
Fairness. There is no other group that has this special tax exemption 
that is allowed to venture beyond the congressional charter boundaries 
which were originally created to go out and advocate their position. If 
the NEA or any other advocacy group in this country, be they left, or 
right, or in the middle, would like to go out and continue advocating 
their positions, wonderful, do it with their privately raised funds, do 
it with volunteers, do it with people who believe in their position. 
But do not try to hoodwink the public into trying to fool them and 
thinking that their tax money is somehow going somewhere else when in 
fact it is going to subsidize a position, a political position, in this 
country.
  And I do not care whether that position again is a liberal position 
or a conservative position. It is wrong to feed at the public trough 
and then go out and advocate political positions in this country. We 
are tired of this. This is a dirty little secret that we are determined 
to expose across this country, and a ``yes'' vote on this amendment 
will help put an end to this once and for all.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized 
for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, the word ``responsibility'' has been raised 
several times in this debate. I believe that we all have a 
responsibility to this institution to follow due process. This is not 
the committee of jurisdiction. There have been no hearings. We heard 
the gentleman from Georgia come to the well a minute ago and say, ``We 
all know they violated the charger, so let us snatch their charter, and 
move on, and maybe we will talk about some others.'' That is not the 
way that this institution should proceed.
  My colleagues have the votes. Send this to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. have a hearing where witnesses can come and bring that 
testimony. This charter was conferred by the Congress and should follow 
a process to revoke that charter.
  So I am not weighing in on the merits of the case at all.

                              {time}  1715

  I am saying that you have a responsibility to this institution. I am 
sure that the brother of the gentleman from California, Mr. Robert 
Dornan, teaches due process, and that is my point. You have made up 
your mind, I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] and 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] has made up his mind. But that 
is not the way we operate around here. That is not the way we should 
operate around here. Make your case to the Committee on the Judiciary 
on this and any other issue. Do not make up your mind and try to shove 
this down the body's throat.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Bonilla].
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210, 
noes 213, 2, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 758]

                               AYES--210

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay

[[Page H 11656]]

     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Gunderson
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Fields (LA)
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Moakley
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1737

  Mr. QUINN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  amendment offered by Mr. hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hostettler: Page 37, line 15, 
     strike ``No funds'' and insert ``(a) No funds''.
       Page 37, line 22, strike ``; nor shall any'' and all that 
     follows through ``1992''.
       Page 38, insert after line 2 the following:
       (b) The Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (D.C. Law 9-114; 
     sec. 36-1401 et seq., D.C. Code) is hereby repealed.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Hostettler] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member in 
opposition will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to strike down the 
District of Columbia's so-called domestic partners ordinance, a 
misguided statute that Congress has blocked the District from 
implementing for the past 3 years. In fact, this city act has never 
been implemented, which is a critical point that needs to be made. It 
is time today to put this bad bill to a final rest and clear away this 
issue so the District and the Congress can begin building a more 
constructive relationship. Congress has never seen fit to appropriate 
$1 for this legislation, and act that seeks to provide health care and 
extend other legal benefits to domestic partners defined as those 
unmarried couples who are over 18 and who live together.
  Many, I'm sure, will oppose my amendment today, saying Congress is 
meddling in the District's matters. Or, even worse some my claim, 
Congress is meddling in a place where we never should venture: the 
bedroom. Perhaps there will also be a few here today who will castigate 
me for offering legislation based on what is the preferred over that 
many will say is the perverted. Such is the nature of our debate.
  I am offering legislation today to make an important public policy 
statement about families in our Nation's Capital, the very seat of our 
whole Nation's Federal Government. This legislation is not about 
extending health care benefits to the needy. I can guarantee you that 
there are an infinite number of ways that the city can do this without 
enacting a domestic partnership law. This amendment is about right and 
wrong, about the proper role of government in general and about the 
appropriate role of the Federal Government in involving itself in the 
affairs of the Nation's Capital. Supporters of my amendment seek to 
affirm the positive, not to cast stones at those engaging in 
alternative lifestyles. We seek to lift up and honor the family, not to 
put down and shame anyone who does not make a commitment to furthering 
the family.
  But let me address those opposed to my measure before I highlight the 
important public policy aspects of my amendment.
  First, striking down this statute, which Congress has thrice blocked 
from being implemented, is not meddling in the local government of the 
District of Columbia. Congress has a clear, express, unquestioned 
constitutional responsibility to direct the District of Columbia, the 
Federal City, especially if the passage and implementation of poor 
public policy is at hand. Yes, Congress passed home rule, and gave the 
District's local governing authority greater power to enact ordinances 
on matters where the Congress had otherwise been silent. But this body 
never gave up our authority, nor renounced our responsibility to 
oversee our Nation's Capital. On the contrary, we reserved those 
rights, as we needed to under the Constitution. The statute at issue 
today confirms the wisdom of the Framers of the Constitution and the 
wise heads in a prior Congress which preserved this role for the 
Congress in Washington, DC. We have the right and the responsibility to 
act and that includes the repeal of any District act at any time. The 
District of Columbia is the Nation's Capital, the Federal City, our 
national government's seat. This seat cannot and should not be kidnaped 
by any group--of the left or right--to make political statement. We 
have the right and indeed I would argue we have the responsibility to 
act in this matter and strike down the Domestic Partners Act. Now while 
we are 

[[Page H 11657]]

on the issue of the Constitution, I cannot forget to point out that 
during hearings that were held on this issue in 1992, a number of 
significant public policy issues were raised by many legal experts 
including the fact that this act quite possibly is preempted by the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1994, which renders this act 
unconstitutional.
  Now other who oppose my measure will say I seek to inject 
congressional authority and oversight in a place it should never go--
the bedroom, They will again offer the well-worn phrases about 
consenting adults being able to engage in whatever consensual acts they 
wish. Well, I point out at the outset of this debate that this bill is 
not about sex. I know that admission will disappoint many; I can see 
stunned staffers looking up from their overheated word processors now 
as they prepared to defend sexual promiscuity and sexual orientation 
and sexual everything else. But that's the wrong speech. The issue 
before this Congress is whether we will allow the District to carry a 
statute on its book that allows a domestic partner, a person so vaguely 
defined that it can be a homosexual lover, a same-sex lover, a 
roommate, a member of one's extended family, a homeless person one 
invites into their abode, to enjoy health benefits and other legal 
rights by virtue of their so-called partnership with a District of 
Columbia government employee or any other individual for that matter.

  The problem with this act is the statement it makes about family, 
equating the support we give families as a society and as units of 
government with loosely affiliated partners. It equates the faithful 
familial ties that are the bedrock of our society's stability and the 
loving environment in which we rear the next generation with a roommate 
or a casual live-in lover or a down-on-their-luck friend who moves to 
get health benefits.
  Still others may rise today and say I am only disparaging gays and 
lesbians to satisfy a personal mean streak or to win political points 
at home with certain groups. This argument, too, misses the mark. My 
amendment seeks to lift up the positive, to value the valuable, to hold 
up the ideal. Government, I believe, has every right to uphold the 
ideal, to esteem, to value, to honor the best. Society, and society's 
tool of government, has a clear right and, indeed, a clear 
responsibility to encourage the preferred. We need to honor traditional 
families, which are the Nation's best hope for emotionally healthy and 
happy, well-adjusted citizens who can govern themselves and continue 
this experiment in self-government we call America.
  Government can give preference to the best for our people--the best 
by any standard, whether health indicators or happiness measures, 
without punishing or singling out the aberrant, the alternative, the 
less-than-best. We as a Congress must stand up and say that we are 
familiar with the social research, we are familiar with the findings of 
the caring professions and mental health, we know the conclusions of 
the health care workers. All point to the dire need in our Nation today 
for stable, two-parent loving families that will honor all family 
measures, especially their children.
  The DC statute denigrates that loving, sacrificial commitment by 
turning these relationships into a menu of economic goodies to be 
grabbed by simply going down to the Mayor's office and signing in. 
Living together? Come on down for health care and more. Shacking up? 
Then you need to sign up.
  This is hardly the basis of sound fiscal stewardship or enlightened 
public policy, which the American taxpayer and the American citizen can 
expect, especially from our Nation's Capital.
  But whether we agree with the misguided policy, the backhanded slap 
at the family cannot and should not be tolerated by this Congress. We 
have thrice blocked this poor piece of work. Today we need to kill it 
and put this issue behind this Congress for good.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment clearly illustrates the mean-
spiritedness of this Congress. This law is intended to extend health 
coverage, something that everyone should have, to a domestic partner.
  Yes, they can be gay; yes, they can be lesbian, but they can also be 
heterosexual.
  This amendment costs the District government nothing. The employee 
pays the entire amount for the additional person carried.
  What is wrong with the District government deciding to extend this 
benefit at no expense to them and of great ability to cover someone in 
their health benefit?
  Yes, there is a division in this country about homosexuality, but 
certainly everyone is entitled to health care, and the District has 
made some other people eligible for it. That is all that is happening 
here. It is, in fact, a cost saving to the District. Because if the 
person does not have insurance, they, in fact, would probably go to the 
general hospital or some other public facility.
  I understand your reservations about some lifestyles, but you are not 
going to change any lifestyle. You do not recognize any lifestyle by 
extending to a person health care coverage. That is all the DC law 
does. Why should Congress repeal that important progressive initiative 
by the District of Columbia?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the question is very simple. Do we want the Congress to 
give its approval as representatives of all the people of this country 
to a law in the District of Columbia over which Congress has very clear 
and appropriate authority that, for purposes of extending certain 
privileges, not entitlements, not rights, to so-called domestic 
partners, placing nontraditional groupings of people, men and men, 
women and women, nonmarried couples on par with the traditional family 
structure of men and women, in marriage, with children?
  I think that it is very appropriate for this Congress to step 
forward, have the backbone to say what previous Congresses have not 
done. They have done it through the back door, by simply not extending 
funding, to once and for all stand up and say that we do believe there 
is merit in the traditional family structure that has done this country 
so well for so long.
  We believe that that heritage ought to be protected and preserved, 
and we think it is wrong for jurisdictions, particularly those over 
which this Congress has jurisdiction, to go against the grain of 
American history, to go against the grain of the strength of our 
society. This legislation is good, it is limited, it is appropriate, it 
does what previous Congresses have not had the backbone to do. It steps 
forward and says traditional family structures are good for this 
country. They have been the backbone of this country. They ought to 
remain the backbone of this country and we should not weaken that.
  I support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I have a stable, loving family.
  As many Members know, this weekend I announced my intention not to 
seek a 13th term in this body. When I did so, I had at my side my 
stable, loving family: My brother, his wife, my sister. Her husband 
unfortunately had died a few months ago. He was a Presbyterian minister 
who led the fight within his church for the ordination of openly gay 
clergy. He would have been there. I think he was there in spirit. It 
was in a church that we made the announcement. And my partner, Dean 
Hara, whom a great many of you, perhaps most of you, know and a great 
many of you consider as a very close friend.
  My colleague from Massachusetts has a stable, loving family; and my 
colleague from Wisconsin has a stable, loving family.

[[Page H 11658]]

  I would suggest that Members do something that is rare around here; 
that is, read the law that we are proposing to repeal. I just did that.
  We have heard it referred to as privileges and economic goodies, 
among other things.
  Let me tell you what this law does that you now are asked to repeal. 
It defines a domestic partner as a person with whom an individual 
maintains a committed relationship. It defines a committed relationship 
as a familial relationship between two individuals characterized by 
mutual caring--mutual caring--and the sharing of a mutual residence. I 
do not know why that frightens or offends anyone in this institution.

  What are the benefits? Unless you are an employee of the District of 
Columbia, and I will come to that in a moment, there is only one 
sentence under domestic partnership benefits. See how this frightens 
you: All health care facilities, including hospitals, convalescent 
facilities, or other long-term care facilities shall allow a patient's 
family member to visit the patient.
  That is the sum total of what is granted by this law to every 
resident of the District of Columbia who is not an employee of the 
District.
  If there is any Member of this House that thinks that I or Mr. Frank 
or Mr. Gunderson or any of the dozens of gay and lesbian staff members 
on both sides of this aisle ought to be denied the right to visit the 
hospital if their domestic partner is ill or dying, I would like to 
hear them stand up here and say that.
  If you are an employee of the District of Columbia, here is what you 
are granted by the statute: Sick leave when needed to care for a family 
member. Funeral leave or annual leave when needed to make arrangements 
for or to attend a funeral or memorial service for a family member.
  I have had more experience than I would like to have had attending 
such memorial services, and I am damned if anybody in this institution 
is going to tell me or anyone else that they can be forbidden the right 
to attend a memorial service for someone they love.
  The only provision in the District statute, the only provision other 
than the ones I have read to you, the only privilege, as it has been 
characterized, the only economic goody, as it has been characterized, 
is optional self-financed health benefits for employees of the District 
of Columbia. They are allowed, and I quote, to purchase, to purchase 
family health insurance coverage. That is it.
  That, my friends, is what we are being asked to repeal. I fail to 
comprehend how that could offend any person.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan], the former fighter pilot and colleague of mine 
in the Committee on National Security.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, I predicted about 10 years ago that I 
someday would come to this floor and announce a great tragedy in modern 
American life. Having just gotten the statistics this week from the 
Centers for Disease Control, the time has come.
  More Americans in the prime of life, including thousands of children, 
have died because of the AIDS virus than were killed in World War II. 
We are now past 295,000 deaths out of 470,000 some odd reported cases. 
There were thousands of deaths in the early part of the 1980s that were 
not reported because of merciful doctors putting down as the cause of 
death, the proximate cause, because of the immune system collapsing, 
they would put down cancer or heart attack. So here we are with more 
people dead of AIDS than World War II, 300,000 rounded off, people who 
died.
  I understand that that horror gives a great deal of passion to a 
debate on redefining the family. But what I just learned from the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], again I point out, my very 
distinguished friend, that we are covering roommates.
  Two very macho heterosexual firemen or policemen who have alternately 
saved one another's lives in severe fires or shootouts can be rooming 
together and have developed a true bonding from professional danger 
shared that they could get health insurance for one another.
  I do not know of anybody who has ever been denied going to be a 
memorial service ever. I never heard of that in my life. I do not know 
why anybody in a life-threatening situation in the hospital cannot 
designate a long list of friends that he or she would rather see even 
than some family members, blood members who have not been too kind to 
them. I never heard of that until recent times, and that can be easily 
resolved.
  What we are simply debating here in the federally controlled District 
of Columbia is a redefinition of the family.
  I do not know. These heterosexual roommates, two wives who maybe 
their husbands were killed in a plane crash, they go to know one 
another through legal process and they became close and their children 
got to know one another. Now they are rooming together, and they have 
different economic situations.
  Have they come to me and lobbied me that we would like to have all 
the advantages of the traditional American family? I have never heard 
of anybody lobbying like that.

  Or two Vietnam vets who alternately shared a combat and saved one 
another's lives and have become roommates, heterosexual roommates, I 
have never heard of any of them lobbying that we now have to redefine 
the American family. I am not prepared to redefine the American family.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Hostettler amendment.
  So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I close with these salient points.
  First, we all know that the intent of this law is to officially 
recognize and sanction homosexual and heterosexual relationships which 
are outside the bonds of marriage.
  Second, some are invoking the Home Rule argument to prevent the 
repeal of this ridiculous law. This amendment is entirely consistent 
with the mechanisms of Congressional review under the Home Rule Act. 
Congress has only delegated authority to the District government, it 
has not abdicated its constitutional obligations.
  Third, this law erodes the legal status of the traditional family and 
denigrates the sanctity of marriage.
  Fourth, if you want to look at reasons why we have too much drug 
abuse, too much teenage pregnancy, too many problems in our schools, 
too much crime in America, look no further than the breakdown of the 
American family unit. I, for one, will not be a party to any measure 
that tries to break down the family any further than it already is.
  Fifth, besides giving health benefits and sick leave to both 
heterosexual and homosexual couples who are merely living together, 
this law gives the appearance that the Congress endorses such behavior. 
It also forces the residents of the District and indeed all Americans 
to accept the devaluation of marriage and the traditional family unit.
  Sixth, this is a vote to keep the Nation's Capital in tune with the 
values that we are supposed to be promoting.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the overriding theme, if there is any, of the 104th 
Congress, appears to be devolving power back to the localities. More 
than any measure that has come on the House floor today, this is the 
real test of whether the majority means it.
  This, of course, is an utterly redundant provision, because it is 
already in the bill. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler] raises 
the ante by saying let us amend the D.C. Code on an appropriations 
bill.
  It is an insult to the District to amend our law and all and 
certainly in this way.
  This is a gratuitously self-indulgent amendment because it rises to 
do what is already done in the body of the bill. It is one of those 
easy targets that makes you say, ``Why don't you pick on somebody your 
own size?''

                              {time}  1800

  District of Columbia residents feel deeply about bigotry. It may have 
to do with the fact that many of us are people of color. In my 
district, most of my residents are Baptists and Fundamentalists.
  But, in the District, there is a consensus that gay men and lesbians 
ought to be able to register and purchase health care if they happen to 
be D.C. government employees, and this bill has a de minimis effect 
because it can help only D.C. government employees. So my constituents 
of every religious background and of every persuasion on the question 
of gays and lesbians support this bill as applied to gay men and 
lesbians.

[[Page H 11659]]

  I want you to know who the chief beneficiaries of this bill are given 
our demographics: Two elderly people living together, a disabled person 
who cannot live alone, two sisters or brothers living together, a 
grandchild and a grandparent living together, a mother and a grown 
daughter living together. That is who you would deny if you deny us the 
right to pass this bill which power should devolve to pass.
  Who supports this provision? the National Council of Senior Citizens, 
the District of Columbia Nurses' Association, the Gray Panthers, 
Concerned Clergy of D.C., Churchwomen United, Disciples of Christ. We 
support this bill. This is our jurisdiction. Let us do with our lives 
and with our constituents what you might not choose to do. Give us our 
full rights as American citizens to recognize all of our citizens.
  Do not vote for this amendment.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment to repeal the D.C. Domestic Partnership Act.
  We voted on this last year. We got 251 votes. Basically, what this 
did is shut down the funding; but we did not have an amendment like 
this which basically from now on will prevent this from happening.
  I ask my colleagues to listen carefully. The District of Columbia is 
a fiscal nightmare. There is too much spending and not enough savings, 
a classic example of big government, big spending that was 
wholeheartedly rejected by the voters in 1994. Priorities must be set. 
Repealing the Domestic Partnership Act is the perfect opportunity to 
set some priorities in this House and ensure that funding for 
nonessential programs will not be sanctioned by this Congress.
  Laws that, in essence, allow homosexual, heterosexual couples to 
cohabitate, register as domestic partners and receive health benefits 
in addition to other legal rights undermine the traditional moral 
values that are the bedrock of this Nation. Legitimizing these 
relationships will only serve to erode our Nation's values. The 
Domestic Partnership Act is nothing more than a revolving door for 
people who have no desire to enter into marriage but still wish to 
receive all the legal and social benefits of the sacred institution of 
marriage.
  We must make it clear that these relationships will not be endorsed 
by this Congress.
  Support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana to ensure 
that D.C. sets its budgetary priorities straight. Say ``no'' to 
irresponsible social experimenting, and let us not tonight redefine the 
definition of the family. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Nadler].
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not implicate, contrary to 
the previous speaker, any funds. This bill would allow, or rather this 
amendment would prohibit the District of Columbia law that allows a 
domestic partner to visit his partner in a hospital, that allows a 
public employee in the District of Columbia to self-finance family 
health insurance for himself or herself and his or her domestic 
partner, self-finance. This has nothing to do with financing. This has 
nothing to do with the fiscal crisis of the District of Columbia.
  This simply has to do with Congress deciding for motives of hatred of 
gay people and lesbians to reach in and tell local government, ``You 
may not have an enlightened policy.''
  The gentleman, the previous speaker, said this is beneficial to 
people who have no desire to marry. There is no jurisdiction in the 
country which allows a gay person or lesbian person to marry. All the 
District of Columbia has decided is certain benefits, to visit the 
sick, to take annual leave, to take leave for bereavement, to bury 
their domestic partner, that they are entitled to that. But we are 
going to say no, we will not let you decide that. The hypocrisy of 
saying that we support local rights, we support home rule, when it has 
nothing to do with fiscal policy, and then passing this amendment is 
paramount, is supreme.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment on grounds of home rule and 
grounds of simple humanity.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, article I, section 8 of the U.S. 
Constitution says the Congress of the United States has the authority 
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the 
District of Columbia. In fact, when the home rule charter was passed 
for the District of Columbia, that authority was expressly retained 
because we cannot give it away. Even if we wanted to, we have 
responsibility for the laws of the District of Columbia, and if they 
are out of tune with what they should be, with what should be the laws 
in the United States of America, we as Members of Congress have the 
obligation, we have the duty, we have taken an oath that says we will 
act.
  Three years straight, the House of Representatives and the Senate in 
bills that have passed and been signed into law by the President, 3 
years straight we have said the law that is now at issue will not be 
effective, will not be enforced. We have had votes in 1994, in 1993, in 
1992, and now in 1995. It is time that we say we make this a permanent 
restriction.
  We do not believe in redefining the family. I heard a speaker say, 
after all, this measure says that people ought to be treated with the 
same advantages as if they were married if they are heterosexual and 
living together. He thought that made the bill better. I say it makes 
it worse. If you are saying that without benefit of marriage you want 
to encourage people to live together and redefine the definition of 
family to include that, the same as a husband and wife, then you are 
twisting what a family is. You are twisting what marriage is. You are 
undercutting families in the United States of America.
  We have enough problems already. Family decline is at the root of 
problems in schools, problems in drug use, of too many teenage 
pregnancies. Marriages might have occurred and now people say, ``We 
don't need to have them because we can have an alternative to family. 
We can undercut the basic building block of our society.'' That is 
wrong. That is wrong to do so. The country will collapse if families 
collapse, and the are teetering and tottering already.
  We do not need the Nation's Capital to say we are going to undercut 
family values. In fact, we are going to kidnap the very definition of 
what constitutes a family. We are going to redefine it as though we can 
improve upon what has given stability and strength to this country for 
its two centuries plus.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage people to vote in favor of the amendment. 
Say permanently the Congress of the United States is not going to 
redefine family and is not going to undercut marriage.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia for her wisdom in recognizing that there is 
something to sovereignty.
  This bill covers disabled citizens. It covers those unable to care 
for themselves. It covers the grandmothers living with the daughter 
trying to protect their life and jointly raising children. Yes, it 
covers African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, it covers gays and lesbians. 
It simply covers the human family.
  I am somewhat concerned with the new message of the U.S. Congress of 
States rights. Although I recognize that many time States rights 
enslaved me as an African-American, I am prepared now to join with them 
and give to the District of Columbia the privilege of being able to say 
that they believe in the humanity of all mankind and womankind, if you 
will, and that they should have the opportunity to rise up to be 
covered by good health care, to visit their loved ones, to protect 
grandmothers, protect the disabled and simply run their business.
  I do not know why we have nothing else to do and why we feel we must 
intrude into this process. I simply ask for fairness, ladies and 
gentlemen, just a simple question of fairness. Treat all people alike.

[[Page H 11660]]

  This is a bad amendment. I would ask you to vote against it and vote 
for humanity and believe that gays and lesbians are human as well.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would just like to reiterate the 
points that need to be made in consideration of this amendment.
  First of all, we have a constitutional obligation in this issue. 
Article I, section 8, clause 17, is that authority under which I am 
offering this amendment. Section 601 of the Home Rule Act further 
returns to the Constitution on Congress' ability to legislate here.
  Also, there is the issue of ERISA preemption. We are also considering 
the moral and legal erosion of the traditional family in this.
  We also must then point out, Mr. Chairman, that in all practical 
terms this legislation has never been implemented. This Congress has 
never appropriated $1 for the implementation of this legislation in 
this legislation's history, and so that must be reiterated.
  I would like to also point out, as I am, that there is something very 
wrong with a piece of legislation that says this, that a person may 
register a new domestic partner after a waiting period of only 6 
months. Thereby, a person could feasibly put two domestic partners a 
year onto his or her health plan every year for the rest of his or her 
life.
  Mr. Chairman, I am coming up very soon now on 12 years of marriage. 
Marriage is an institution in this country that I believe needs to be 
edified and exalted, and our Congress should do its part.
  I ask for a ``yea'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I hope intellectual honesty 
is still in order. ERISA, schmarisa, this is not about ERISA. This is 
about people who want to show a dislike and disapproval of gay men and 
lesbians, and for some odd reason, apparently they find gay men and 
lesbians more obnoxious if we happen to be in a stable relationship 
than if we are not.

                              {time}  1815

  This is the ``Promote Promiscuity Act,'' I suppose, but people 
sometimes get into unintended consequences. Let us also be clear the 
nitpicking of the statute, it is a District of Columbia ordinance, is 
besides the point. If it were tightened, if it in fact said this is for 
gay men and lesbians who could not otherwise be married, they would be 
just as angry.
  I did agree with the gentleman from California, who pointed out how 
many people have died of AIDS, who were well below the normal age at 
which people die. I welcome his support for greater AIDS funding. Maybe 
he will explain to the Senator from North Carolina the relevance of 
that, when more people have died of AIDS than died in World War II.
  But I want to address this notion that somehow this undermines the 
family. Members have said ``Well, people are here looking for their 
approval.'' Herb and I have been together for 8 years. I want to assure 
those who have spoken in favor of this, we do not seek your approval. 
It is of no consequence to us whatsoever.
  What we seek is to protect ourselves, and, even more, people more 
vulnerable than us, from the bigotry and interference that would harass 
them, belittle them, and deny them basic rights. And you say ``Well, 
you have got to do this. It is not meanness, it is not bigotry. You 
have got to do it, because it would undermine the family.''
  That is bizarre. Is your faith in the family of such fragility that 
you think people are going to learn that Herb and I live together, that 
Dean and Gary live together, and they are going to leave their wives?
  I have said this before. There was a commercial before about V-8 
Juice, and there would be this cartoon character. And he would drink an 
apple juice, and he would drink a tomato juice, and he would drink a 
carrot juice. And someone would give him a V-8, and he would say, ``I 
could have had a V-8.''
  What are we, gay men, the V-8 of American society? Are you so 
frightened that people will see two men living together in a loving 
relationship, or two women living together in a loving relationship, 
and that will undermine the family? Shame on those. You are the ones 
who undermine the family when you trivialize it like this.
  If you want to compare, if your view of the family is that 
materialistic, apparently some of them believe on the other side that 
if you do not bribe people, they will not stay in their families. If 
you have that materialistic view, I would say do not worry, because 
there will still be many, many more advantages. The right to visit 
someone who is very ill, and that right has been denied to gay 
partners. It is not purely academic, it has been denied to people. The 
material balance will still be on your side.

  But I have to know what it is, how does this mechanism work? How are 
we undermining families? And you say, ``Well, we don't want the Federal 
Government to give this stamp of approval.'' That is a very 
totalitarian concept of the Federal Government. What happened to your 
libertarianism? Is it not the role of the Federal Government in fact to 
let people make their own choices. Are you saying that the people you 
represent, the people for whom you speak, do not think what they do has 
value, unless it is stamped ``kosher for Passover'' by the Federal 
Government, the necessary changes being made?
  I do not understand the logic here. In fact, what has happened is the 
District of Columbia, and, by the way, I am also struck, I guess maybe 
the New York Times is going to have to recall the issue of a couple 
weeks ago with the picture of Marion Barry and Newt Gingrich on the 
cover, the two pals. Speaker Gingrich said he is for home rule. What, 
until bigotry says otherwise?
  We are not talking about the constitutional right to do things. We 
have a constitutional right to do a lot of things. The question is 
whether or not we should do it.
  What is it that drives us to say that we will strike from the books 
something that was democratically done by the elected people of the 
District of Columbia? ``Well, it is going to undermine the family.'' I 
have asked and asked and asked again, how does the fact that Herb and I 
share a residence in the District of Columbia, and care for each, and 
love each other, and wish to spend our time together, how does that 
undermine your family? What is it about our life that is going to tear 
asunder these family ties?
  What we are talking about, and this makes it very clear, we are not 
talking about a threat to the family. We are talking about people who 
cannot abide, apparently, people differing with them. That is what we 
are talking about.
  I have no desire to abandon families. Ten days ago Herb and I were 
hosts to his sister and brother-in-law and their two children, and then 
my niece came down. We are both members of loving, extended families. 
We interact quite well with our families.
  This is an absolute tissue of lies, this assertion that you are doing 
this to protect the family, because anyone who understands families, 
who understands what the emotion really is that brings families 
together, could not think that we undermine the family.
  I would ask the Members to vote with the earliest speaker in favor of 
home rule, and not with this effort to impose bigotry on the people of 
the District of Columbia.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249, 
noes 172, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 759]

                               AYES--249

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder

[[Page H 11661]]

     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Chapman
     Fields (LA)
     Harman
     McDade
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Thornton
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. BONO, Mr. BALDACCI, and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. NEY and Mr. FORBES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Allard) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
2446) making appropriations for the government of the District of 
Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against 
the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1996, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________