[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8053-H8067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on 
Thursday, July 18, 1996 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. 3845.

[[Page H8054]]

                              {time}  1504


                     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. 
3845) 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, 
1997, 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 order of the House of Thursday, July 
18, 1996, the bill is considered as having been read the first time.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] will each control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. WALSH. asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased this afternoon to present to 
the House for its consideration the District of Columbia appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1997. Our many months of public hearings, 
meetings, and negotiations have produced a strong bipartisan agreement 
that takes the next step toward reduced deficits, reduced borrowing, 
and a balanced budget.
  This is the second budget for the District of Columbia government 
that I have presented. I am happy to report that the District 
government, with the help of the Financial Control Board, is making 
progress, perhaps not as quickly as some of us would like, but 
progress.
  In addition to the Control Board, the independent Chief Financial 
Officer has been in place now for several months and seems to be 
getting a handle on the District's finances. In last year's bill, we 
included language that gave him control over all accounting, budget, 
and financial management personnel. I believe he is doing an 
outstanding job. He is bringing accountability to the District's 
finances. He, of course, works closely with the Control Board so that 
what he does is within the parameters set by the board.
  Mr. Chairman, we have approved over 99 percent of the consensus 
budget submitted jointly by the Mayor, the City Council, and the 
Control Board. This bill will provide the District government with a 
total budget of $5.155 billion for fiscal year 1997. That amount 
includes $5.108 billion in operating expenses and $47 million in 
capital outlay.
  In the operating expenses category, the bill includes an additional 
$44 million for police and fire protection over last year's 
appropriation. We also recommend the requested $8.5 million for 
increased training of current District employees to improve 
productivity and management skills.
  Public school reform was an important part of our bill last year. One 
of the major items carried in that reform legislation was the 
authorization of public charter schools. This bill includes $2.8 
million to fund 5 charter schools in fiscal year 1997 that will enroll 
450 to 600 students.
  We recommend a total of $718 million in Federal funds consisting of a 
Federal payment of $660 million which is the same as last year, the 
regular annual Federal contribution to the police, fire, teachers, and 
judges retirement funds of $52 million, and $5.7 million to cover the 
expenses incurred by the District in connection with the Presidential 
inaugural activities.
  The bill is within our 602(b) allocation of $718 million in budget 
authority and outlays.
  Mr. Chairman, in order to show continuous progress toward balancing 
the District's budget, we have included language in section 141 
starting on page 45 of the bill that holds the deficit down to $40 
million rather than the $99 million that was proposed by city officials 
and the Control Board. I have met separately with the Mayor and the 
Control Board chairman and I believe this reduction of $59 million in 
the deficit projection is eminently achievable without affecting basic 
city services.
  Some concern has been expressed that we are cutting too much in this 
budget. Some clarification is required as to what is meant by cutting. 
What we are cutting, Mr. Chairman, is the increase in spending. We are 
not cutting below last year's spending level. In fact, the budget 
reflects increases of $114 million above last year's level. What we are 
saying to the District in this bill is that it can spend the increase 
of $114 million if it has the revenues. The message to the District is 
do not finish fiscal year 1997 with a deficit of more than $40 million.

  In the financial crisis that the city finds itself in, I believe this 
is a reasonable approach that will keep the city from going even deeper 
into debt. This 1-percent reduction pales in comparison to the action 
taken by the New York City Financial Control Board in its first year. 
According to testimony we received earlier this month from General 
Accounting Office officials, New York City's control board in its first 
year of operation implemented a work force reduction of 13 percent from 
the previous year's level and it froze the wages of the remaining city 
employees for 3 years. Philadelphia's control board in its first year 
renegotiated all labor agreements which led to a 33-month wage freeze 
and extensively restructured health benefits, paid holidays, and sick 
leave.
  I wanted to make that point clear. The reduction we are recommending 
is from the increase requested, not from last year's appropriation or 
their base.
  One of the serious problems with the District's financial management 
is that it spends up to the appropriated amount regardless of what its 
revenues are. By doing that, it goes further and further into debt. I 
do not believe the city can spend itself into prosperity. It must 
eliminate its deficit spending which amounts to only 1 or 2 percent of 
the total operating budget.
  A major concern of several of our committee members is the city's 
proposal to finance the operating deficits. By saying that, what we are 
talking about is further borrowing, both long and short-term. This will 
divert scarce operating revenues from education, from social programs, 
from public safety and street repair to interest costs paid to the 
bondholders. The District is considering submitting a proposal to 
borrow $500 million over 15 years to pay off the accumulated debt and 
finance future deficits. It would require repayments of $935 million in 
addition to the $480 million payback on the fiscal year 1991 deficit 
borrowing. These paybacks shift over $600 million from city programs to 
interest payments for bondholders. This proposal is not good news for 
current and future District taxpayers and must be restudied with the 
objective of spending tax dollars on city programs and not on interest 
costs. Just as the city cannot spend itself into prosperity, it cannot 
borrow itself into prosperity. Hard decisions must be made.

  Mention was made several times last year that our fiscal 1996 bill 
was a bad bill because we reduced the budget and in effect were telling 
the District that it could not spend all the revenues it generates. The 
problem with that criticism is the District's revenue projections were 
overly optimistic by at least $116 million and possibly by $150 
million. Had we not made spending reductions and instead had accepted 
the city's budget, the fiscal 1996 deficit would now be $270 million 
rather than the $116 million projected. So we made the right decision 
last year by reducing the expenditure level because the revenue 
collections are nowhere near what they had projected. Had we accepted 
the Control Board's numbers, the deficit would have been $245 million. 
With the spending we agreed to in conference last year, the deficit was 
estimated at $20 million, four-tenths of one percent, an amount we 
thought the city and the Control Board would work with and hopefully 
eliminate. As we found out since, the deficit will be higher because of 
the overly optimistic revenue projections.
  Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that the major structural problems 
facing the city be dealt with in an aggressive and bold manner. The 
Federal Government, the District government, and our regional partners 
all share responsibility for our Nation's Capital. We must address in a 
comprehensive and coordinated manner the city's delivery of services 
such as health care, corrections, and other State and county functions. 
I noticed in the press that the City Council is having some difficulty

[[Page H8055]]

in doing what has to be done regarding a new retirement system for 
police officers, firefighters, and teachers. I understand that that has 
been revisited and some progress has been made but it is only temporary 
and it must be made permanent. We were promised last October that 
necessary action would be taken last December. This is an issue that 
must be resolved in a way that does not bankrupt the city. We have 
confidence in the Mayor, the Chief Financial Officer, the City Council, 
and the Control Board to accomplish these difficult but absolutely 
necessary tasks.
  In closing, I want to thank all the members of our subcommittee for 
their assistance in bringing this bill to the House floor--the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla]; the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston]; the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen]; the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann]; the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Parker]; the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], the ranking 
member of our subcommittee who preceded me as chairman; the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Serrano]; and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur]. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations; and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our ranking minority member, for 
their assistance in allowing this bill to come to the floor today.

                              {time}  1515

  Also, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff for a job well done: 
John Simmons of my staff; Mike Fischetti, who is on detail from the 
GAO; Mary Porter, who is extraordinary in her technical expertise, she 
is on detail from the District Government; and Migo Miconi, the 
subcommittee clerk. They make a great team, and I appreciate all the 
work they do.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the bill we bring to the committee this 
afternoon is a good bill, one that is fair not only to the city 
government but also to District taxpayers. I strongly recommend this 
bill to my colleagues and urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3844. Let me say this year 
that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the chairman of the 
committee, should be congratulated for reaching out in a bipartisan way 
in an effort to keep extraneous material and legislative issues off of 
the District of Columbia appropriation bill.
  Let me also commend the chairman of the committee, along with the 
fine staff that he has, Migo Miconi, John Simmons, Mike Fischetti, and 
Mary Porter, and take a special time to say that in the minority we do 
not have the large staff that the majority has. Cheryl Smith, who is an 
assistant to me, a staff assistant to me on the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia, operates on three other committees and in fact 
does an excellent job. I appreciate the time and the effort that she 
gives me.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, that this marks a significant turn in the D.C. 
appropriations bill but also the finances of the District. I would have 
to point out that the District, under the supervision of the Control 
Board, is now making arrangements to borrow short term from Wall 
Street, which I think is an encouraging sign that Wall Street thinks 
that they are moving in the right direction.
  This bill comes to us without controversy for the first time. The 
District of Columbia, the city council, the Mayor, the Control Board, 
and we here in Congress, at least our subcommittee, agrees as to what 
the figures should be, and there is no controversy surrounding that.
  I would like to take time to point out two or three issues. The first 
one is the unfunded liability of the pension plan. As the chairman of 
the committee indicated, we are providing $52 million. The President 
had sent up $102 million to try to relieve the unfunded liability that 
the District has in its pension plan. I do not excuse the fact that, 
since the District took over the pension plan, they have continued the 
twice-a-year COLA's. As the chairman pointed out, they have been slow 
to move on the issue of reforming their pension plan.
  I must point out that at the time the District took over the pension 
plan, there was a $2.7 billion deficit. We move $2.7 billion of 
liability from the Federal Government to the District Government. Also, 
I must point out that it has about doubled. But the point that I would 
like to make is, no, it is true that the District cannot spend its way 
out of this financial crisis nor can it entirely cut its way out of 
this financial crisis.

  This body must recognize that we have responsibilities, particularly 
to that pension plan to come up with a revised program to make it 
financially sound. I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, two 
measures, although I do support the bill, that I disagree with. One is 
the prohibition against any funds for abortion, either Federal or 
District funds except to save the life of the mother, rape or incest.
  It seems to me that we allow all 50 States to make those decisions. 
The Supreme Court has said that States can promulgate reasonable rules 
on abortion. I think that we should allow the District to do the same 
that we do in our independent States.
  The second one is the Domestic Partners Act. Some years ago, I think 
4, the District of Columbia passed a Domestic Partners Act which 
basically allowed for insurance programs to carry domestic partners on 
the District side and on the private side offered a tax incentive to 
private business to do so. This bill, as usual, carries a prohibition 
against the implementation of that.
  Once again, I think it is certainly appropriate that the District be 
allowed, as States do, to make up their own decisions on these matters. 
As many people have pointed out, we have not been elected to be members 
of the City Council. Certainly, although Members of this House may 
disagree with a particular rule or regulation of our own city council, 
we do not have the responsibilities to curtail that; but here, because 
of the financing situation, we certainly do.
  In all, Mr. Chairman, this is a very fine bill. I also would like to 
thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], the chairman of the 
authorizing committee, and the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton], his ranking member, for their outstanding work. 
In my view, the next big text for the District is the strategic plan 
that is developed by the Financial Control Board.
  I think that we have to wake up every day and remind ourselves that 
the Financial Control Board has really stepped in to do a job for 
Congress, that it is a noncompensated board, it has five District 
residents who are distinguished Americans in their own right and that 
they are doing an excellent job. But the next 10 months is going to be 
a very difficult time for the District, and I think this bill is a step 
in the right direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. 
I want to compliment him and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon], for their yoeman's work on behalf of the 
District of Columbia in trying to work through what has been a very, 
very difficult financial crisis.
  As we look at the situation today and compare it to even a year ago, 
we have really made progress. That is sometimes lost sight of in light 
of the headlines that come out every day with the continuing problems 
that the city has. But if we go back a year, we have reduced the number 
of employees in the city by several thousand over what it was a year 
ago, and that is total reduction. That is not just moving them off 
budget into enterprise funds and the like. We find that there is a 
certain level of stability now to city spending, and we are trying to 
bring some accountability to the managers in the city in terms of what 
they spend with the advent of the Control Board and the CFO, both of 
which I think are doing yoeman's work, as well.
  We have brought honest answers to the process, something we have not

[[Page H8056]]

seen for many years here on Capitol Hill in terms of having some level 
of confidence in the financial numbers that are offered to the Congress 
by the District of Columbia. I think this has been borne out by the 
fact that the city is now able to go out to the private financial 
markets, at least on short-term borrowing. I think we still have a ways 
to go over the long term, but we have made this in a year trying to 
work together on a bipartisan basis.
  We have had our disagreements along the way, but I think the bill 
this year represents a very good effort toward bringing some structure 
and financial stability to the city and I rise in support of it. As the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] says, we cannot spend our way to 
prosperity. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] has said, we 
cannot cut ourselves out of the financial situation.
  I think the current issue that remains before this body as it works 
its way through conference is, the larger the debt, of course, the more 
that will have to be financed in the off years. I think that has been 
the intention of the committee, to try to bring down that annual 
deficit so it would not have to be financed and paid for in later years 
when the city will be scarce on money.
  I also want to just share my concern that we do this in an 
appropriate fashion so that needed services are not cut. As we work our 
way through the process, I know we have the assurances of both the 
chairman and ranking members that this will be done in a constructive 
manner to continue to work with the Control Board, continuing to work 
with the chief financial officer of the city to make sure this is done 
appropriately.
  Having said that, this bill adds some money in some critical places. 
Public safety money is fully funded. We are including $2.8 million for 
public charter schools which were part of the public school reform 
legislation that passed the Congress last year. We are restoring salary 
and overtime pay rollbacks for the police and fire departments, 
something that is long overdue.
  We are spending more on the health of the indigent by increasing the 
subsidy to District General Hospital. This helps lower the burden 
across the region, not just in the District of Columbia in terms of the 
health care costs. Congress has stepped up in the budget this year, I 
think to try to make sure that we are caring for that in an appropriate 
manner.
  This is important to the region, both Maryland and Virginia, and 
District residents. We are providing for the repayment to the water and 
sewer fund of $91 million borrowed by the general fund to pay for their 
past operating expenditures. These were in the past paid for in a very 
general sense by the ratepayers, many of them in the suburbs. It would 
be paid for, instead of being invested in Blue Plains, were spent for 
some of the city operating budget deficit. So that is in this as well.
  We have reached a regional agreement on the authorizing side to make 
sure this has happened, and that has already passed this body. So we 
made progress in this region as well. There is one piece of legislation 
in this that I have, after extensive discussions with the chairman and 
ranking member who also support it, and that is extending the powers 
given to the chief financial officer. That was put in originally last 
year to hire and fire the executive branch of the accounting, budget 
and financial management personnel during the control period.
  We recognize that personnel changes are going to have to be made, and 
we know where the buck is stopping. We want to give the chief financial 
officer and the Control Board the appropriate level of responsibility 
in doing that. With that responsibility comes the authority in some of 
these cases to make these changes.
  In all, I just want to compliment the chairman and ranking member. I 
think we have all learned a lot over the last year and a half trying to 
work together toward a very, very difficult problem for this city, this 
region, and this country. We are making headway. I am hopeful that this 
bill will be passed through the House and go on to the Senate.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the distinguished 
Delegate from the District of Columbia, [Ms. Norton.]
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time. I want to thank him and the chairman of the committee for 
their very hard work and for quickly disposing of this appropriation.
  I thank the chairman as well for meeting with the Mayor and the 
Chairman of the Control Board before his bill came to committee 
finally. I thank both Members even as I indicate, as they have not, 
that I am greatly disappointed in this bill. I am left and the District 
is left with no alternative, however.
  A year ago, Congress established a Financial Authority or control 
board to help the District move out of insolvency. The Authority here 
is like the control boards in Philadelphia and New York. By this time, 
however, those cities have made significantly more progress than D.C. 
has made. The difference almost entirely is the strategy being used to 
resuscitate the city's economy. The only strategy the Congress has 
allowed for D.C. is the downsizing of its government.
  New York and Philadelphia returned to solvency through the use of 
more comprehensive approaches that rebuilt those cities even as they 
were being downsized. These included new sources of revenue and 
takeover of functions by their States.
  Look now at the first year of the District working with its control 
board. This first year will be remembered for second-guessing of the 
board, even after its exhaustive scrubbing of the budget, including 
deep cuts; a government shutdown of the District requiring the District 
to pay a full week's salary for locked-out employees; and 7 months 
delay in receipt of the full Federal payment, driving the District 
deeper into insolvency.
  In these and other actions, the Congress must accept a heavy share of 
the responsibility for the alarming deterioration of city services and 
the hastening of taxpayer flight. The District has lost more residents 
in the first half of the 1990's than it lost in the 1980's with no 
State to help it out and a Congress that refuses to meet any of its 
obligations. The city is stranded and it is sinking.
  Although this is the Capital of the United States and this body bears 
constitutional responsibility for this city, Congress has done nothing 
to help D.C. get back on its feet since the Financial Authority bill 
was enacted in April 1995. There has been no action whatsoever, even on 
those matters for which there is 100-percent congressional 
responsibility. Costs that are the most responsible for bringing the 
city down, ironically, are not found in the city's dysfunctional 
bureaucracy but in congressionally mandated State costs. Without action 
on these congressional responsibilities, the Capital of the United 
States cannot revive and will not survive.

                              {time}  1530

  These include the $2.7 billion in unfunded pension liability, now 
more than doubled at $5 billion, largely because of interest on the 
original $2.5 billion. This liability that was incurred exclusively on 
Congress' watch before home rule.
  The District, on the other hand, has been meeting its pension 
obligations by fully funding these pensions since they were handed to 
the District in 1980. Over $300 million, or 10 percent, of tax raised 
revenue goes to pay pensions left unfunded by this body. The 
administration asked for a small additional sum of $52 million to add 
to the small $52 million congressional contribution for the District in 
this year's budget. Even this nominal amount was removed by the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Is there to be no end to unfairness to the city? Nor has this House 
responded any better to what should be done for State responsibilities 
that no city in the United States has ever carried or could possibly 
carry today. The District has the lowest contribution for Medicaid and 
is the only city that must pay for the State and county share while one 
in four residents are on Medicaid.

  Such expenses will doom the city to permanent insolvency. More than 
two-thirds of the States, 37 of them get a higher Federal contribution 
to Medicaid than the District of Columbia. Even the GAO in recent 
testimony questioned the wisdom of leaving these costs off the table 
while trying to revive the District.

[[Page H8057]]

  My friends, this body is pretending. The cost of the pretense amounts 
to a sacrifice of the Capital of the United States.
  As if to add insult to multiple injuries, this year's appropriation 
takes a budget already cut over $100 million by the control board and 
the city and cuts it an additional $60 million.
  The cut comes disguised as a $40 million deficit cap that is tied to 
the city's declining revenues. The cut ignores budget savings of $141 
million that the city will realize through layoffs, contracting out of 
services, reductions in Medicaid spending, welfare reform and 
procurement reform, just to name a few of the structural initiatives 
contained in the city's consensus budget.
  The monolithic downsizing strategy this body has adopted amounts to 
no strategy at all. In the appropriation process we are abandoning the 
central strategy we adopted when we authorized the Financial Authority. 
For very good reason, this Congress gave the city 4 years to return to 
solvency. Downsizing needs to be planned and precise or it will take 
down services with it. We are cutting the budget as we must, but in the 
process we are slaughtering the city.
  Residents who remained in the city through years of management 
problems are giving up and leaving as services dissolve before they can 
be fixed because of a speedup in downsizing. This appropriation 
accelerates the downsizing far faster than the Financial Authority 
recommended in its objective findings.
  As the city moved toward insolvency, I never asked this body to spare 
it downsizing or cuts. They were clearly necessary. I was the first to 
step forward to indicate that a control board was necessary. All I have 
asked is that downsizing be done in a way that is fair to the innocent 
bystanders. They are my constituents, not the D.C. Government. They are 
my constituents, our residents, who are second per capita in Federal 
income taxes. They deserve far better from the city and the Congress 
than the appropriation before us allows.
  Yet I have no choice but to ask Members to approve this 
appropriation. An appropriation that does harm will do more harm if it 
is delayed, as it was last year.
  However, I take this opportunity to ask my colleagues to make this 
the last year that the city stands alone, with a Congress that insists, 
as it should, that the city meet its obligation, while the same 
Congress ignores its unique responsibilities and the weight of its own 
heavy hand in keeping the city down. A city left twisting in the wind 
long enough will fall. If the Capital of the United States falls, the 
sound will be heard around the world.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time and the right to close.
  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 myself such time as I may consume. I 
will be brief in closing.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank everyone involved for their 
support in this process and I certainly want to thank the efforts of 
the authorizing committee and the subcommittee chair, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Davis], and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton]. While they may not agree totally 
with what we have proposed, they are urging support of the bill, and I 
thank them for that.
  There has been some progress, Mr. Chairman. It is difficult to see at 
times, but I think we need to stop and look and see how far we have 
come. The financial control board has begun to put some muscle into new 
management in the District, especially in the chief financial officer 
position. The CFO is beginning to make his mark in terms of 
strengthening the discipline of the financial management of the 
District of Columbia.
  We have much better numbers now. For the first time in a long time we 
are getting into a range where we can count on the numbers that we are 
getting from the city. The city is moving toward restructuring some of 
its nonessential services. The control board is proposing a strategic 
plan which we all await with great anticipation, because that truly 
will be the path that we follow to take this city out of its crisis.
  The deficits are going down. The receiver of the city housing 
department reports progress. Blue Plains is becoming a regional 
facility. Spending is under control. High government payrolls are being 
reduced.
  Have we been tough, Mr. Chairman? Yes, we have. But sometimes tough 
love is required to get the proper outcome. No doubt that we all love 
this city greatly, all of us. All of us come at it from a different 
point of view, but this is our Nation's Capital. It is a marvelous 
place. It is the seat of democracy. It is the envy of the world. We 
cannot do any less than be tough to get it back on its road to 
recovery.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their indulgence, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 18, 1996, the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 
minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed 
question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device 
without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by 
electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be 
less than 15 minutes.
  After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that the 
Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted shall, if ordered by the majority 
leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3845

       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, 1997, and 
     for other purposes, namely:

              Federal Payment to the District of Columbia

       For payment to the District of Columbia for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1997, $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), 
     $52,070,000.

                       Presidential Inauguration

       For payment to the District of Columbia in lieu of 
     reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with 
     Presidential inauguration activities, $5,702,000, as 
     authorized by section 737(b) of the District of Columbia 
     Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Public 
     Law 93-198, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 1-1803), which shall 
     be apportioned by the Chief Financial Officer within the 
     various appropriation headings in this Act.

                          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, $115,663,000 and 1,440 
     full-time equivalent positions (including $98,691,000 and 
     1,371 full-time equivalent positions from local funds, 
     $12,192,000 and 8 full-time equivalent positions from Federal 
     funds, and $4,780,000 and 61 full-time equivalent positions 
     from other funds): Provided, That funds expended for the 
     Executive Office of the Mayor are not to exceed $1,753,000: 
     Provided further, 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 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 no revenues from Federal 
     sources shall be used to support the operations or activities 
     of the Statehood Commission and Statehood Compact Commission: 
     Provided further, That the District of

[[Page H8058]]

     Columbia shall identify the sources of funding for Admission 
     to Statehood from its own locally-generated revenues.

                  Economic Development and Regulation

       Economic development and regulation, $135,704,000 and 1,501 
     full-time equivalent positions (including $67,196,000 and 720 
     full-time equivalent positions from local funds, $45,708,000 
     and 524 full-time equivalent positions from Federal funds, 
     and $22,800,000 and 257 full-time equivalent positions from 
     other 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, $1,041,281,000 and 11,842 full-time 
     equivalent positions (including $1,012,112,000 and 11,726 
     full-time equivalent positions from local funds, $19,310,000 
     and 112 full-time equivalent positions from Federal funds, 
     and $9,859,000 and 4 full-time equivalent positions from 
     other 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 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, 1997, shall be 
     available for obligations incurred under the Act in each 
     fiscal year since inception in 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, 1997, 
     shall be available for obligations incurred under the Act in 
     each fiscal year since inception in 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, 1997, 
     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, 1997, 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, $758,815,000 and 11,276 
     full-time equivalent positions (including $632,379,000 and 
     10,045 full-time equivalent positions from local funds, 
     $98,479,000 and 1,009 full-time equivalent positions from 
     Federal funds, and $27,957,000 and 222 full-time equivalent 
     positions from other funds), to be allocated as follows: 
     $573,430,000 and 9,935 full-time equivalent positions 
     (including $479,679,000 and 9,063 full-time equivalent 
     positions from local funds, $85,823,000 and 840 full-time 
     equivalent positions from Federal funds, and $7,928,000 and 
     32 full-time equivalent positions from other funds), for the 
     public schools of the District of Columbia; $2,835,000 from 
     local funds for public charter schools: Provided, That if the 
     entirety of this allocation has not been provided as payments 
     to one or more public charter schools by May 1, 1997, and 
     remains unallocated, the funds will revert to the general 
     fund of the District of Columbia in accordance with section 
     2403(a)(2)(D) of the District of Columbia School Reform Act 
     of 1995 (Public Law 104-134); $88,100,000 from local funds 
     for the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; 
     $69,801,000 and 917 full-time equivalent positions (including 
     $38,479,000 and 572 full-time equivalent positions from local 
     funds, $11,747,000 and 156 full-time equivalent positions 
     from Federal funds, and $19,575,000 and 189 full-time 
     equivalent positions from other funds) for the University of 
     the District of Columbia; $22,429,000 and 415 full-time 
     equivalent positions (including $21,529,000 and 408 full-time 
     equivalent positions from local funds, $446,000 and 6 full-
     time equivalent positions from Federal funds, and $454,000 
     and 1 full-time equivalent position from other funds) for the 
     Public Library; $2,220,000 and 9 full-time equivalent 
     positions (including $1,757,000 and 2 full-time equivalent 
     positions from local funds and $463,000 and 7 full-time 
     equivalent positions from Federal funds) for the Commission 
     on the Arts and Humanities: 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 official purposes: Provided further, That 
     not less than $9,200,000 shall be available from this 
     appropriation for school repairs in a restricted line item: 
     Provided further, That not less than $1,200,000 shall be 
     available for local school allotments in a restricted line 
     item: Provided further, That not less than $4,500,000 shall 
     be available to support kindergarten aides in a restricted 
     line item: Provided further, That not less than $2,800,000 
     shall be available to support substitute teachers in a 
     restricted line item: Provided further, That not less than 
     $1,788,000 shall be available in a restricted line item for 
     school counselors: 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, 1997, 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, $1,685,707,000 and 6,344 full-time 
     equivalent positions (including $961,399,000 and 3,814 full-
     time equivalent positions from local funds, $676,665,000 and 
     2,444 full-time equivalent positions from Federal funds, and 
     $47,643,000 and 86 full-time equivalent positions from other 
     funds): Provided, That $24,793,000 of this appropriation, to 
     remain available until expended, shall be available solely 
     for District of Columbia employees' disability compensation: 
     Provided further, That the District of Columbia 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

[[Page H8059]]

     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, $247,967,000 and 1,252 full-time equivalent positions 
     (including $234,391,000 and 1,149 full-time equivalent 
     positions from local funds, $3,047,000 and 32 full-time 
     equivalent positions from Federal funds, and $10,529,000 and 
     71 full-time equivalent positions from other 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 Transfer Payment

       For payment to the Washington Convention Center Enterprise 
     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, $333,710,000 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, 
     $38,314,000 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)(1)).

              Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing

       For payment of interest on short-term borrowing, 
     $34,461,000 from local funds.

                       Presidential Inauguration

       For reimbursement for necessary expenses incurred in 
     connection with Presidential inauguration activities as 
     authorized by section 737(b) of the District of Columbia 
     Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Public 
     Law 93-198, as amended, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 
     824; D.C. Code, sec. 1-1803), $5,702,000, which shall be 
     apportioned by the Chief Financial Officer within the various 
     appropriation headings in this Act.

                     Certificates of Participation

       For lease payments in accordance with the Certificates of 
     Participation involving the land site underlying the building 
     located at One Judiciary Square, $7,926,000.

                      Human Resources Development

       For Human resources development, including costs of 
     increased employee training, administrative reforms, and an 
     executive compensation system, $12,257,000.

                       Cost Reduction Initiatives

       The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     shall, on behalf of the Mayor and under the direction of the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, make reductions of $47,411,000 and 
     2,411 full-time equivalent positions as follows: $4,488,000 
     in real estate initiatives, $6,317,000 in management 
     information systems, $2,271,000 in energy cost initiatives, 
     $12,960,000 in purchasing and procurement initiatives, and 
     workforce reductions of 2,411 full-time positions and 
     $21,375,000.

                             Capital Outlay


                        (Including Rescissions)

       For construction projects, an increase of $46,923,000 
     (including an increase of $34,000,000 for the highway trust 
     fund, reallocations and rescissions for a net rescission of 
     $120,496,000 from local funds appropriated under this heading 
     in prior fiscal years and an additional $133,419,000 in 
     Federal funds), 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 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, 1998, 
     except authorizations for projects as to which funds have 
     been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30, 
     1998: 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, $221,362,000 from 
     other funds of which $41,833,000 shall be apportioned and 
     payable to the debt service fund for repayment of loans and 
     interest incurred for capital improvement projects.

              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.), $247,900,000 and 100 full-time 
     equivalent positions (including $7,850,000 and 100 full-time 
     equivalent positions for administrative expenses and 
     $240,050,000 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.), $2,511,000 and 8 full-time equivalent positions 
     (including $2,179,000 and 8 full-time equivalent positions 
     from local funds and $332,000 from other funds).

                             Starplex Fund

       For the Starplex Fund, $8,717,000 from other funds for 
     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, $112,419,000 of which $59,735,000 
     shall be derived by transfer from the general fund and 
     $52,684,000 shall be derived from other funds.

                         D.C. Retirement Board

       For the D.C. Retirement Board, established by section 121 
     of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform Act of 1989, 
     approved November 17, 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     711), $16,667,000 and 13 full-time equivalent positions 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

[[Page H8060]]

     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), $3,052,000 and 50 full-time equivalent positions from 
     other funds.

              Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund

       For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund, 
     $47,996,000 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), $3,400,000.

  Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill, through page 21, line 8, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           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.
       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. 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 Subcommittee on the District of 
     Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 
     Management 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.
       Sec. 111. 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. 112. 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. 113. 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. 114. 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. 115. The Mayor shall not expend any moneys borrowed 
     for capital projects for the operating expenses of the 
     District of Columbia government.
       Sec. 116. 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.): Provided, That for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1997 the above shall apply except as modified by Public 
     Law 104-8.
       Sec. 117. 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. 118. 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. 119. (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 1996 shall be 
     deemed to be the rate of pay payable for that position for 
     September 30, 1996.
       (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. 120. 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, United States Code.
       Sec. 121. 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), based 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

[[Page H8061]]

     the District in terms of economy, efficiency, and the 
     District's best interest.
       Sec. 122. No later than 30 days after the end of the first 
     quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council 
     of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 1997 revenue 
     estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 
     1997. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998. The officially 
     revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear 
     report.
       Sec. 123. 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. 124. 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.
       Sec. 125. 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. 126. 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, 1996, of the required reorganization plans.
       Sec. 127. (a) An entity of the District of Columbia 
     government may accept and use a gift or donation during 
     fiscal year 1997 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. 128. 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 
     Representative 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)).

  Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill, through page 32, line 5, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             Prohibition Against Use of Funds for Abortions

       Sec. 129. None of the funds appropriated under this Act 
     shall be expended for any abortion except where the life of 
     the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to 
     term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape 
     or incest.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Norton: On page 32, line 7, after 
     ``the'' insert ``Federal''.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes and that 
that time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not know 
that we will need 40 minutes on this.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the Delegate had 
suggested, very graciously, that she would be willing to limit debate 
to 40 minutes; that was the number arrived at. We do not need that much 
time, but I am not sure how much time she will need on that side.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. 
Norton] is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, several people asked to speak. I may not need the full 
20 minutes if they, in fact, do not appear.
  My amendment would return us to the policy of this body on abortion 
that was used throughout President Reagan's administration. During each 
year of his administration, President Reagan signed a bill that 
prohibited the use of Federal funds in the District of Columbia for 
abortion services to low-income women except for risk of the life of 
the mother, rape, and incest.
  This put the District in the same boat with every jurisdiction in the 
country, ``Use your funds, not ours,'' Congress said.
  Only in 1988, at the onset of the Bush administration, did the policy 
change. Even local funds they could not be used until the 103d 
Congress, when the President signed a bill exactly like the Reagan bill 
during all his 8 years.
  In 1988, leave aside that our residents in the District were not 
treated as full and equal American citizens in democratic home rule, in 
representation in the Congress, and in taxation. Now added was the 
sensitive and abidingly local issue of choice. Here too inequality with 
all other Americans was to be the order of the day.

                              {time}  1545

  Allowing the District the right of all other local jurisdictions 
leaves in place the Hyde amendment. It will apply to the District as 
Hyde applies now and as Hyde applies to every other jurisdiction that 
flies the American flag.
  What a small step this would be. In its financial condition, the 
District is, after all, unlikely to use little, if any, money on 
abortions for poor women. It needs the option in the rare case where it 
might decide that it is in the best interest of the woman and of the 
District to pay for such an abortion. The District has many women who 
have AIDS, are on drugs or are in deep distress. With the flight of 
middle-income taxpayers, this group of low-income women grows ever 
larger.
  There is absolutely no reason to deny the District this right, is the 
rare case, if it so chooses, where it would feel compelled to spend its 
own money in this way. It is wrong to single out the District in a way 
that we do not single out San Diego or Bloomington or Syracuse. It is 
wrong to find yet another way to say to my constituents--you will not 
be treated as other Americans.

[[Page H8062]]

  Choice is the law of the land. Choice is the law equally across the 
entire land, except here where the Congress sits, and except for poor 
women when an abortion must be paid for because there is no personal 
fund available to do so.

  Mr. Chairman, I ask this body to bring democracy home in this 
instance. The time has finally come in 1996, when it is highly unlikely 
that the right would be exercised, to give the District, at least in 
law, the right that every other jurisdiction has: to afford funds for 
women to make the choice that only they have the right to make.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (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.
  I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. This bill is 
different from the other 12 regular appropriations bills in that our 
bill appropriates all funds for the operations of the District 
government; all funds, not just Federal funds. That is the way the bill 
is designed. That is why the abortion language in section 129 of our 
bill restricts the use of all funds for abortions, except to save the 
mother's life or in cases of rape or incest. I think that is consistent 
with our appropriations policies. We are appropriating all funds for 
this bill.
  The abortion language in our bill this year is identical to the 
language in last year's bill which was signed by the President. It is 
also identical to the language in the continuing resolutions that the 
President signed last year.
  It is identical to the language in Public Law 104-69 that the 
President signed on December 22, 1995; to legislation that he signed on 
January 4, 1996; to legislation that he also signed on January 6, 1996, 
and to legislation he signed less than 3 months ago on April 26.
  While I appreciate the gentlewoman's feelings about home rule, the 
language in our bill does allow the use of funds for abortions in those 
cases where the life of the mother is endangered or in the case of rape 
or incest. I believe it is broad enough to give District officials the 
discretion they need so that the procedure is not misused.
  Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned just a moment ago, the President, less 
than 3 months ago, signed a bill with language identical to that found 
in section 129 of this bill. There is no reason for the President to 
not approve this language which, again, is identical to language he 
recently approved.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon], ranking member.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  This issue of abortion in our society is probably one of the most 
controversial ones that we have faced in many, many years. There are 
people who believe in being pro-choice, who personally are opposed to 
abortion. There are the pro-life people that do not believe in abortion 
under any circumstances. The case of Roe versus Wade made very clear 
that abortion was appropriate in the first trimester. A lot of people 
did not like that. In fact, another case came to the Supreme Court 
where, generally speaking, pro-life people had prevailed on a State 
legislative body to restrict that right.
  The Supreme Court said, you are absolutely right. States have a right 
to restrict abortion as long as we deem it to be reasonable 
restrictions.
  Now, most pro-life people applauded that decision. Here we have the 
District of Columbia, who had initiated their own abortion procedures. 
But because they allow abortion by their local statutes, Congress is 
doing what they cannot do to any other State. That is, abortion 
procedures in the first trimester are appropriate and legal and States, 
and in this case I would say the District, have a reasonable right to 
promulgate regulations.
  The chairman of this committee points out that, in fact, the 
President did sign continuing resolutions, and I believe an 
appropriation bill. But he signed it with great reservation. This is a 
clear issue of Congress trying to dictate to the citizens of the 
District on a very personal and controversial matter which the court, 
the Supreme Court, has said that States, and in this case the District, 
have a right to promulgate. But merely because the vehicle that is used 
to fund the District comes through Congress, we want to restrict that 
right greater than we have the ability to do with any State.
  It is on that basis I would ask my colleagues to reject the 
amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Walsh for 
his moral courage and leadership in putting this important language in 
the underlying bill--the D.C. appropriations bill. The Norton 
amendment, the pending amendment, would nullify Mr. Walsh's lifesaving 
legislation and should be defeated.
  Let me make it very clear that the only way to ensure Hyde-type 
protections for the taxpayers is to reject this pro-abortion amendment. 
The net consequence, the absolutely predictable consequence, if this 
amendment prevails, is that we will pay for abortions on demand in the 
District of Columbia.
  We have, as a Congress, jurisdiction over the Federal and the 
congressionally authorized funds and in many parts of this bill that 
are not being contested we have taken action to limit how certain funds 
will be spent. So this is hardly a precedent. Home rule isn't absolute.
  A moment or two ago, Mr. Dixon said that the Supreme Court's Roe 
versus Wade permits first trimester abortions in the District of 
Columbia. That's only part of the tragic holding in Roe. Roe versus 
Wade did not just allow first trimester abortion on demand. It also 
allows the slaughter of unborn babies in the second trimester and in 
many cases in the third trimester as well.
  The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that we are talking about children 
at various stages of their development in the District of Columbia 
whose death, whose killing would be paid for and subsidized by the 
taxpayer.
  Let me remind Members that the Norton amendment wants to subsidize a 
deed--the act of aborting a baby. Some will try to sanitize this issue 
and package it as a freedom or liberty. It is not. Abortion is child 
abuse. And the so-called right to abortion was forced on us by the 
Supreme Court of the United States. Some day that gross injustice will 
be reversed. Because all babies, these unborn children, boys, girls, 
black, white, Hispanic, and Asian, right now are very precious but 
today they are construed to be persona non grata. It seems to me that 
we ought to, as a Congress, if we care, if we believe their lives to be 
precious, do all that is humanly possible to mitigate the possibility 
of their death. And it seems to me that if we take away the subsidy 
that actually buys and administers the chemical poison, the salt 
solutions and the other kinds of lethal drugs that are used to kill the 
babies, if we take away the subsidy that kills the baby by way of 
dismemberment of arms and legs and even sections of the child's fragile 
body are cut and the baby is removed, this is the reality of the deed 
that the gentlewoman's amendment would seek to have us give 
authorization to pay for. If you really take the time to think about 
what abortion does to the baby, this amendment becomes more repulsive 
and wrong.
  It seems to me that where we can step in and save the life of even 
one baby, we ought to do it. I take a back seat to no one in this 
Chamber when it comes to maternal health care and other kinds of 
assistance for mothers both domestically and internationally. But when 
it comes to killing unborn babies, we ought to say ``no.'' This 
amendment would authorize the killing of unborn babies by way of 
subsidy.
  When we used to pay for abortions on demand in the District of 
Columbia we paid for over 3,000 child killings per year. In 1988, for 
example, the number of kids destroyed was 3,139.
  Vote down this antichild amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently said that I was opposed to 
the Norton amendment. I meant to say that I supported the gentlewoman's 
amendment.

[[Page H8063]]

  I also point out to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Smith], that the issue of abortion is one that will not be 
resolved by adopting this amendment. But the issue of allowing the 
taxpayers of this district to spend their own money should lie in favor 
of allowing them to do so.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I want to close now, seeing none of those who asked for time are here.
   Mr. Chairman, there is very little to get excited about when we 
discuss a choice amendment on the District of Columbia appropriation. 
No one believes that in the state of its finances, what we are going to 
see is an epidemic of abortions in the District.
  This amendment has largely symbolic importance. It says to the 
District, you are full Americans, you are full citizens, you can spend 
your money as you like. You can vote for this bill, even if you oppose 
abortion, because this bill is almost surely not likely to yield 
abortions because there is no money for abortions in the District. 
There is little money even for front-line services in the District.
  Yet I would think we would use this opportunity to say to the 
residents of the District, hey, you are full Americans, it is your 
money, use it the way we use our money in our cities and counties.
  I just want to say that the recitation of the bills the President 
signed last year, including our own, which contained language like 
this, ought to be understood in light of the President's statement on 
this bill. In that statement he has said that he is strongly opposed to 
this language.
  The chairman indicates, and I must say that I appreciate, that the 
language here is like the language in other bills inasmuch as it 
incorporates life of the mother, rape, and incest. If that is to be the 
case and if the chairman is to take note of it, there is no reason not 
to go the rest of the way and make the language the way the language is 
for the rest of America. What you do with your money is your business, 
and especially in this year when you are almost guaranteed not to use 
your money for abortions for poor women.
  The people I represent pay the highest taxes in the United States of 
America. When you combine their State taxes with their Federal taxes, 
they are No. 1. Put yourself in the position of the people I represent. 
Put yourself in the position of people who pay the same taxes and, in 
almost every case, more taxes than the people you represent and imagine 
how you would feel if a national body tried to tell you how to spend 
your local funds.

                              {time}  1600

  I guarantee my colleagues that if they put themselves to that test, 
they will vote for my amendment.
  I ask that this body approve my amendment and approve the bill as the 
chairman has brought it to the floor.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have no further requests for time on this amendment, and I would 
close by saying, as I said earlier, that this is an unusual bill in 
that we appropriate all the funds, both Federal and local, for the 
District of Columbia. We did not set it up that way, the Constitution 
did. Therefore, I think in order to be consistent with the government-
stated policy on funding abortions, we should stick to the language in 
section 189 of the bill that says no funds can be used for abortions 
except to save the mother's life or in cases of rape or incest. So I 
would strongly urge defeat of this amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Norton 
amendment.
  This amendment would simply allow the District to decide whether to 
use its own locally raised revenues to pay for Medicaid abortions--
while still retaining the ban on the use of Federal funds for 
abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the 
mother.
  The amendment would properly restore the right of the District of 
Columbia to decide how its own revenues should be used, as is the case 
for the States. The concept of home rule is meaningless if Congress can 
dictate the allocation of local revenues.
  To restrict the use of local District revenues for abortions violates 
the right of the District Government to make its own public health 
policy. In doing so, Congress is denying District residents the right 
of self-determination, a right belonging to every other resident of 
this country.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Dixon amendment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3845.
  I do so not because of the funding amounts specified in the 
appropriations, although they present difficult questions about the 
extent to which this Congress is honoring its constitutional and 
commonsense responsibilities to the District. Rather, my opposition is 
based on two overreaching and unwarranted interferences by this 
Congress in the lives of the people of the District. Those are the 
provisions of sections 129 and 130, which prohibit the use of Federal 
and local funds for abortion and for domestic partner benefits.
  It is time for this Congress to end its unnecessary interference with 
the District government's arrangements with its employees relating to 
health and other benefits. H.R. 3845 continues the shortsighted and 
narrow-minded prohibition on using any funds--even those raised within 
the District through local taxation--to extend health benefits to the 
domestic partners of District employees.
  The District should be free to pursue, through negotiations with its 
represented employees or otherwise, the same policies that many other 
municipal governments and businesses have successfully implemented. 
Extending the same benefits to domestic partners of employees as are 
enjoyed by the spouses of employees can be a cost-effective way to 
retain capable workers.
  In my district, the city of Portland, Multnomah County and Portland 
Public Schools have all negotiated domestic partner benefits packages 
with their employees. About 2 percent of the work force have enrolled 
their unmarried domestic partners as beneficiaries under this program, 
and the modest additional cost was offset by other benefit plan 
changes. As a result, these public employers, at no cost to the public, 
have been able to retain highly valued and productive employees to do 
the public's business.
  Gay and lesbian workers know discrimination and bias when they see 
it. If they are capable, motivated workers, they will look for a 
workplace that values them for the work they do, rather than penalizing 
them. Mr. Speaker, if we are operating on the premise that the District 
needs the best and the brightest to turn this city around, then let us 
not tie the District government's hands with this regressive, 
counterproductive and mean-spirited restriction.
  To my second point: There is also no sound reason for this Congress 
to interfere with the fundamental reproductive rights of women. 
Nonetheless, Congress has interfered prohibiting the use of Federal 
funds for most categories of abortion. In this measure, this body 
continues the even more outrageous practice of prohibiting the District 
government from using its own, locally raised funds to provide medical 
services that the Supreme Court of the United States has held are 
constitutionally protected.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District would have 
restored at least some of the ability of the District government to 
fund necessary abortions for poor women. Its rejection makes the 
prohibition in this measure an unacceptable limitation upon the 
reproductive rights of those women. I regret that I must therefore vote 
to reject the measure as a whole.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. First, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
District of Columbia appropriations bill. I want to commend the 
chairman and Congressman Dixon for working in a bipartisan fashion to 
craft a good bill. I am pleased that at my request, the bill contains 
language dealing with two important issues which affect the District 
and the greater Washington Metropolitan area.
  The bill contains report language which expresses Congress' strong 
intent for the District of Columbia to repay over $80 million diverted 
from Blue Plains to other District programs. This substantial loss of 
funds has led to serious maintenance and plant operations problems at 
the facility. Moreover, there remains a threat to the sewage ratepayers 
and residents of the Metropolitan area for having untreated sewage 
flowing down the Potomac River. There is also a serious threat to the 
fragile environmental conditions of the waterways. In order to prevent 
danger to life or environment, return of the funds is necessary so that 
the Blue Plains facility can return to safe and efficient operation.
  My top priority continues to be protection of human health and 
ensuring proper clean up and preservation of the waterways and wildlife 
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin including the Potomac, Anacosta, and 
Patuxent Rivers. Having sufficient funding for Blue Plains will allow 
the plant to operate safely and efficiently

[[Page H8064]]

and eliminate threats to life and the environment. Therefore, the 
return of the funds is critical.
  I believe, as do others, that one of the best ways to resolve the 
operational and management problems at Blue Plains is to restore the 
funds taken from the Blue Plains account and prohibit the further 
transfer of any additional funds. Therefore, at my request, the 
committee included report language in the fiscal year 1996 District of 
Columbia appropriations bill which asked the financial responsibility 
and management assistance authority to address how the District planned 
to restore funds taken from the Blue Plains budget and the timing for 
that restoration.
  In its fiscal year 1997 budget and financial plan, the District has 
agreed to pay back $21.5 million over the next 4 years in order to 
replenish funds diverted from Blue Plains. This agreement is reflected 
in the bill and it is our expectation that this agreement will be 
honored.
  Second, I am pleased with the funding for the D.C. fire department in 
this bill. This funding level consistent with the request of the D.C. 
City Council and the control board, is sufficient to end the practice 
of rotated closings of companies which have placed areas throughout the 
city at risk every day.
  This bill will also provide $4 million for firefighting apparatus 
which will be used to begin the process of modernizing the firefighting 
fleet in order to provide a sufficient arsenal to protect the 
residents, workers, and visitors of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, an issue which continues to plague the fire department 
is the understaffing of firefighters. I want to commend Chairman Walsh 
for adding language to this bill, at my request, instructing the 
District to fill the 87 vacancies that currently exist in the fire 
department. The city currently ranks last among the 25 largest cities 
in the United States in on-duty fire suppression, and second in total 
fire and rescue alarms per 100,000 people.
  The understaffing of the department and the rotated closings of up to 
eight companies a day poses a public safety threat to those who work 
and reside in the District and is financially irresponsible. This bill 
is an important step forward in making the District's fire department 
one of the finest in the Nation and I commend the committee for its 
efforts.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Walsh and Congressman Dixon for their 
work and support. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3845, the 
Fiscal Year 1997 Appropriations Act for the District of Columbia.
  Let me begin by complimenting my subcommittee chairman, Congressman 
Walsh, on his excellent work on this bill, as well as the ranking 
member, Mr. Dixon, for all of his work. Many months of hearings, 
meetings, and negotiations, have resulted in the strong, bipartisan 
bill before the House today.
  H.R. 3845 appropriates $717.8 million for the Federal payment to the 
District of Columbia. The bill's funding levels are identical to last 
year's appropriation, except for an additional $5.7 million that the 
committee provided to reimburse the city for the upcoming 1997 
Presidential inauguration.
  I do believe that the approach the Appropriations Committee has taken 
in this bill will move the city toward financial stability. This bill 
caps the city's fiscal 1997 budget deficit at $40 million. This 
represents an amount that is $60 million less than what the city and 
the control board forecast. I believe that this deficit cap represents 
great progress in the District's path toward stability, allowing for 
responsible spending to meet the needs of city residents without 
affecting essential services.
  H.R. 3845 also approves a budget blueprint for the city that was 
reached by the Financial Control Board, the D.C. Mayor and City Council 
and seems like a responsible attempt to control spending. I am pleased 
that the budget blueprint that H.R. 3845 approves earmarks the full 
budget request of $1 billion for local law enforcement, fire, and 
emergency services personnel along with the judicial and corrections 
system. While the District needs to control spending, I firmly believe 
that reductions should not be taken from an already understanding 
public safety force.
  Overall, the priorities reflected in the blueprint promote education, 
public safety, public works, and economic development. I would urge the 
control board to continue its close scrutiny of District financial 
matters to assure that the District adheres to the sound fiscal policy 
that this bill promotes.
  While I strongly support this bill today, I continue to have concerns 
in two areas not addressed by this appropriations bill. First, I have 
strong reservations about the control board's recommendation for 
Congress to authorize long-term deficit borrowing for the District. The 
city has proposed borrowing $500 million over 15 years to pay off the 
accumulated debt and finance future deficits. I continue to be 
concerned that deficit borrowing would cost current and future 
taxpayers over $750 million in interest costs alone.
  Second, although a great deal of progress has been made, the 4-year 
financial control plan has not been approved by the committee. I would 
urge the completion of this long-term plan so that Congress, city 
leaders, and control board members may begin review and negotiations 
for essential structural changes in the city's management that must be 
made in order to reach long-term stability.
  Again, I rise in support of H.R. 3845 and I would urge all of my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this past March, Mayor Marion 
Barry appeared at a hearing held by the D.C. Subcommittee and testified 
that, because of the failure of Congress to enact the District's fiscal 
year 1996 budget until seven months into that fiscal year, the District 
was in worse financial shape than in March 1995, when the Congress 
established the D.C. Financial Control Board to bring about the 
District's financial recovery.
  I found the Mayor's remarks to be distressing news--particularly in 
light of the fact that the District had, as the Congress directed, 
successfully cut its spending and achieved significant workforce 
reductions. The fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill mandated that the 
District's spending be cut by $140 million and that 2,000 positions be 
eliminated from its workforce. A subsequent audit established that both 
of these requirements had not only been met but had been exceeded. In 
fact, the District cut a total of 5,600 positions, and reduced spending 
by $477 million.
  Today, 4 months since the Mayor's bleak assessment, the situation is 
still very bad, but it appears there is now some prospect for 
improvement. Even though the District government remains burdened with 
an accumulated budget deficit of almost $500 million, and its fiscal 
year 1996 revenues are $116 million below what had been expected, last 
week there was an encouraging development.
  District officials traveled to Wall Street where they were able to 
secure a $220 million short-term loan from an investment firm to help 
meet the immediate cash needs. This is significant because it was the 
decline of the District's credit rating to junk bond status which 
triggered the need for the Financial Control Board. This loan signals 
recognition that the District of Columbia has begun to take the steps 
needed to restore its solvency and that it may soon be able to access 
the market for debt restructuring and the financing of much needed 
capital projects.
  Further, the bill before us, which incorporates the District's fiscal 
year 1997 budget and elements of its multi-year financial plan also 
signals administrative progress which enabled the work on this package 
to proceed in a more timely and a less contentious manner than last 
year.
  The Mayor, city council, and the Financial Control Board worked 
closely and cooperatively together until they achieved a consensus 
package which sets forth a series of revenue initiatives and spending 
reductions designed to produce a balanced budget by fiscal year 1999. I 
commend them for their efforts and encourage them to continue tackling 
the tough problems which lie ahead in this same manner.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that the good work done by these 
local officials was not accepted by the chairman of the D.C. 
Appropriations Subcommittee. Instead, he chose to require an additional 
$40 million in cuts, which will unquestionably have a negative impact 
on city services should it be retained. I sincerely hope that the 
Senate will support the locally developed consensus budget and that a 
higher spending mark will be agreed to in conference.
  This one reservation notwithstanding, I urge the approval of this 
appropriations measure because I believe that, overall, it will aid the 
revitalization of our Nation's Capitol.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
18, 1996, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] will be 
postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  Prohibition on Domestic Partners Act

       Sec. 130. 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 that such

[[Page H8065]]

     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.

       Compensation of Members of Judicial Nomination Commission

       Sec. 131. (a) In General.--Effective as if included in the 
     enactment of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 
     1996, section 434(b)(5) of the District of Columbia Self-
     Government and Governmental Reorganization Act 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.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 133(b) of the District 
     of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1996 is hereby repealed, and 
     the provision of law amended by such section is hereby 
     restored as if such section had not been enacted into law.


           Monthly Reporting Requirements--Board of Education

       Sec. 132. The Board of Education shall submit to the 
     Congress, the Mayor, and the 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.


                     Monthly Reporting Requirements

                 University of the District of Columbia

       Sec. 133. The University of the District of Columbia shall 
     submit to the Congress, the Mayor, and the 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, non-appropriated funds, and 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.


                     Annual Reporting Requirements

       Sec. 134. (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 1996, fiscal year 1997, 
     and thereafter on a 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) Submission.--The annual report required by subsection 
     (a) of this section shall be submitted to the Congress, the 
     Mayor, the District of Columbia Council, the Consensus 
     Commission, and the Authority, not later than February 15 of 
     each year.


                  Annual Budgets and Budget Revisions

       Sec. 135. (a) No later than October 1, 1996, or within 15 
     calendar days after the date of the enactment of the District 
     of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1997, whichever occurs later, 
     and each succeeding year, the Board of Education and the 
     University of the District of Columbia shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, the Mayor, the District 
     of Columbia Council, the Consensus Commission, and the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, 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).


                      educational budget approval

       Sec. 136. 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.


                   Public School Employee Evaluations

       Sec. 137. 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.


   Modifications of Board of Education Reduction-in-Force Procedures

       Sec. 138. The District of Columbia Government Comprehensive 
     Merit Personnel Act of 1978, D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et 
     seq.), is amended--
       (1) in section 301 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-603.1)--
       (A) by inserting after paragraph (13), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(13A) The term `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.''; and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (15), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(15A) The term `school administrators' means principals, 
     assistant principals, school program directors, coordinators, 
     instructional supervisors, and support personnel of the 
     District of Columbia public schools.'';
       (2) in section 801A(b)(2) (D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     609.1(b)(2)(L))--
       (A) by striking ``(L) reduction-in-force'' and inserting 
     ``(L)(i) reduction-in-force''; and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (L)(i), the following 
     new clause:
       ``(ii) 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;''; and
       (3) in section 2402 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-625.2), by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(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. 139. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     rule, or regulation, an employee of the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools shall be--

[[Page H8066]]

       (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.


             Modification of Reduction-in-Force Procedures

       Sec. 140. (a) Section 2401 of the District of Columbia 
     Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 1-625.1 et seq.) 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) The District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit 
     Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), as 
     amended by section 149 of the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-134), is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 2407. ABOLISHMENT OF POSITIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997.

       ``(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, 1997, each 
     agency head is authorized, within the agency head's 
     discretion, to identify positions for abolishment.
       ``(b) Prior to February 1, 1997, 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 affected 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 one 
     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 United States 
     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 veterans 
     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, 1997, 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, 
     1997, on any incumbent employee remaining in any position 
     identified to be abolished pursuant to subsection (b) of this 
     section''.


                    ceiling on expenses and deficit

       Sec. 141. (a) Ceiling on Total Operating Expenses and 
     Deficit.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the total amount appropriated in this Act for operating 
     expenses for the District of Columbia for fiscal year 1997 
     under the caption ``Division of Expenses'' shall not exceed 
     the lesser of--
       (A) the sum of the total revenues of the District of 
     Columbia for such fiscal year and $40,000,000; or
       (B) $5,108,913,000 (of which $134,528,000 shall be from 
     intra-District funds).
       (2) Enforcement.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority shall take 
     such steps as are necessary to assure that the District of 
     Columbia meets the requirements of this section, including 
     the apportioning by the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     appropriations and funds made available to the District 
     during fiscal year 1997.
       (b) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in Ceiling.--
       (1) In General.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Mayor 
     of the District of Columbia may accept, obligate, and expend 
     Federal, private, and other grants received by the District 
     government that are not reflected in the amounts appropriated 
     in this Act.
       (2) Requirement of chief financial officer report and 
     financial responsibility and management assistance authority 
     approval.--No such Federal, private, or other grant may be 
     accepted, obligated, or expended pursuant to paragraph (1) 
     until--
       (A) the Chief Financial Officer of the District submits to 
     the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority established by Public Law 
     104-8 (109 Stat. 97) a report setting forth detailed 
     information regarding such grant; and
       (B) the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority has reviewed and approved the 
     acceptance, obligation, and expenditure of such grant in 
     accordance with review and approval procedures consistent 
     with the provisions of Public Law 104-8, the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Act of 1995.
       (3) Prohibition on spending in anticipation of approval or 
     receipt.--No amount may be obligated or expended from the 
     general fund or other funds of the District government in 
     anticipation of the approval or receipt of a grant under 
     paragraph (2)(B) or in anticipation of the approval or 
     receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not subject to 
     such paragraph.
       (4) Monthly reports.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District shall prepare a monthly report setting forth 
     detailed information regarding all Federal, private, and 
     other grants subject to this subsection. Each such report 
     shall be submitted to the Council of the District of 
     Columbia, and to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate, not later than 15 
     days after the end of the month covered by the report.


         chief financial officer powers during control periods

       Sec. 142. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during any control period in effect under subtitle A of title 
     II of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Act of 1995 the following shall apply:
       (a) the heads and all personnel of the following offices, 
     together with all other District of Columbia executive branch 
     accounting, budget, and financial management personnel, shall 
     be appointed by, shall serve at the pleasure of, and shall 
     act under the direction and control of the Chief Financial 
     Officer:
       The Office of the Treasurer.
       The Controller of the District of Columbia.
       The Office of the Budget.
       The Office of Financial Information Services.
       The Department of Finance and Revenue.
     The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority established pursuant to 
     Public Law 104-8, approved April 17, 1995, may remove such 
     individuals from office for cause, after consultation with 
     the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer.
       (b) The Chief Financial Officer shall prepare and submit to 
     the Mayor, for inclusion in the annual budget of the District 
     of Columbia under part D of title IV of the District of 
     Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act 
     of 1973, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 774; Public Law 
     93-198), as amended, for each fiscal year occurring during a 
     control period in effect under subtitle A of title II of the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Act of 1995, annual estimates of the expenditures 
     and appropriations necessary for the operation of the Office 
     of the Chief Financial Officer for the year. All such 
     estimates shall be forwarded by the Mayor to the Council of 
     the District of Columbia for its action pursuant to sections 
     446 and 603(c) of the District of Columbia Self-Government 
     and Governmental Reorganization Act, Public Law 93-198, 
     approved December 24, 1973, without revision but subject to 
     recommendations. Notwithstanding any other provisions of the 
     District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act, Public Law 93-198, approved December 24, 
     1973, the Council may comment or make recommendations 
     concerning such estimates, but shall have no authority to 
     revise such estimates.

[[Page H8067]]

             Police and Fire Fighter Disability Retirements

       Sec. 143. (a) Up to 50 police officers and up to 50 Fire 
     and Emergency Medical Services members with less than 20 
     years of departmental service who were hired before February 
     14, 1980, and who retire on disability before the end of 
     calendar year 1997 shall be excluded from the computation of 
     the rate of disability retirements under subsection 145(a) of 
     the District of Columbia Retirement Reform Act of 1979 (93 
     Stat. 882; D.C. Code, sec. 1-725(a)), for purposes of 
     reducing the authorized Federal payment to the District 
     of Columbia Police Officers and Fire Fighters' Retirement 
     Fund pursuant to subsection 145(c) of the District of 
     Columbia Retirement Reform Act of 1979.
       (b) The Mayor, within 30 days after the enactment of this 
     provision, shall engage an enrolled actuary, to be paid by 
     the District of Columbia Retirement Board, and shall comply 
     with the requirements of section 142(d) and section 144(d) of 
     the District of Columbia Retirement Reform Act of 1979 
     (Public Law 96-122, approved November 17, 1979; D.C. Code, 
     secs. 1-722(d) and 1-724(d).
       (c) This section shall not go into effect until 15 days 
     after the Mayor transmits the actuarial report required by 
     section 142(d) of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform 
     Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-122, approved November 17, 1979) 
     to the District of Columbia Retirement Board, the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, and the President pro tempore 
     of the Senate.
       Sec. 144. (a) Section 451(c)(3) of the District of Columbia 
     Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, approved 
     December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 803; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     1130(c)(3)), is amended by striking the word ``section'' and 
     inserting the word ``subsection'' in its place.


                   district of columbia school reform

       Sec. 145. Section 2204(c)(2) of the District of Columbia 
     School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) Tuition, fees, and payments.--
       ``(A) Prohibition.--A public charter school may not, with 
     respect to any student other than a nonresident student, 
     charge tuition, impose fees, or otherwise require payment for 
     participation in any program, educational offering, or 
     activity that--
       ``(i) enrolls students in any grade from kindergarten 
     through grade 12; or
       ``(ii) is funded in whole or part through an annual local 
     appropriation.
       ``(B) Exception.--A public charter school may impose fees 
     or otherwise require payment, at rates established by the 
     Board of Trustees of the school, for any program, educational 
     offering, or activity not described in clause (i) or (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A), including adult education programs, or for 
     field trips or similar activities.''.

  Mr. WALSH (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 52, line 23, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.


                   amendment offered by mr. traficant

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 52, after line 23, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 146. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each agency of the Federal or District of 
     Columbia government shall provide to each recipient of the 
     assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment that has been 
offered to all the appropriation bills, and I am going to thank all the 
appropriators for, over the years, including this language into the 
bills. I think it encourages people to whenever possible in utilizing 
the scarce procurement dollars of the U.S. Government, to attempt to 
buy wherever possible American-made products.
  In addition, anybody who would, in fact, place a false, fraudulent 
made-in-America label on any product that is sold to our Government 
through any of these contracted agreements would be prohibited from 
bidding on further contracts.
  So I appreciate the fact the appropriators have included this 
language. It is that standard language that has been on other 
appropriation bills.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant] for yielding. We have examined the amendment, Mr. Chairman, 
find it to be in perfectly good order, find it to be consistent with 
the wishes of the subcommittee, and have no objections to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the 
subcommittee Chair.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California, the 
distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, the minority has no objection to this 
amendment. It is a good amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, with that I hope wherever possible when 
we expend U.S. taxpayer dollars it is on American-made products from 
American workers who pay our taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1997.

  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. 
Walsh) 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. 
3845), 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, 
1997, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________