[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.
____________________