[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8752-H8796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS, MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM, AND 
                      EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1998

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 264 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. 2607.

                              {time}  1252


                     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. 
2607) 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, 
1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. Camp in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] and 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  (Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my speech 
at the moment, but considering where it was 6 or 8 weeks ago, it is 
much better and I appreciate the comments from my fellow colleagues 
about my health.
  I want to also thank the members of my subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham], the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], the gentlewoman 
from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Aderholt], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] for 
all their hard work on this bill.
  The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the ranking member and I 
have disagreed on many parts of the bill, but he has always been very 
supportive in his efforts, with polite debate and working with us in 
those areas where we could agree.
  It is often a thankless job, but a necessary one, for we frequently 
hear about the residents of the District, but we have a responsibility 
to the 260 million Americans to whom this city is very special.
  H.R. 2607, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, fully funds 
the District of Columbia at $4.8 billion. It pays down $200 million of 
the District's short-term debt and provides $100 million additional if 
savings are provided. It provides $269 million for needed capital 
improvements, school and street repairs. It reforms medical 
malpractice. It provides scholarship choice for Washington, DC 
students.
  With the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act early this summer, the

[[Page H8753]]

Congress relieved the District of some $700 million in spending 
responsibilities and provided the District with some $235 million in 
net savings. Now, this was not saved by the District, but it was able 
to be used toward reducing the District's debt. Our bill uses these 
savings to pay down debt and to fix the crumbling schools and streets 
which have been disregarded in many cases in the Nation's Capital.
  The bill provides that additional management savings the District 
promised in its fiscal year 1999 budget be moved to fiscal year 1998, 
with any savings realized devoted to further deficit reduction.
  Finally, District revenues over estimates will be placed in a D.C. 
taxpayer's relief fund. That fund will perhaps provide somewhere 
between $75 million and $100 million in much needed taxpayer relief.
  With over 100,000 taxpayers having left the District in the past few 
years, our bill tries to reach the twin goals of making the city 
government more effective and keeping in place a tax base. It really 
does not matter how efficient we make D.C., because if we continue 
driving taxpayers out of the District then all we may be doing is just 
processing welfare payments.
  Our bill also includes groundbreaking provisions to provide 
educational scholarships for the District's children and places 
noneconomic damage limits on medical malpractice awards up to $250,000, 
and permits the schools to waive Davis-Bacon so that needed school 
repairs can get done in a timely, cost effective manner.
  The House passed education scholarships as part of the fiscal year 
1996 bill, and the medical malpractice reform in this bill is based on 
the House passed medical malpractice provisions of this year's budget 
bill.
  Our bill also removed the tax exemption for the National Education 
Association and devotes their property tax payment to charter schools.
  Our bill also funds the University of the District of Columbia Law 
School. However, if it does not receive full and unconditional 
accreditation, the funds appropriated will be used for those students 
currently enrolled to gain an education elsewhere.
  We provide District of Columbia police officers and fire fighters 
with a needed pay raise based on merit--and performance, for officers 
on the street, not behind a desk. And we make sure that school teachers 
have valid credentials before they can receive a raise.
  And, finally, our bill contains a number of important provisions to 
strengthen the independence of the D.C. inspector general and the chief 
financial officer, and to provide the D.C. Control Board with 
congressional direction and priorities.
  Our manager's amendment, drafted with the full support of the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], my ranking minority member, and 
incorporated into the rule just passed, resolves several thorny issues, 
including making sure that the control board selects an independent 
vendor qualified by the Office of Management and Budget to update the 
District's current financial management system.
  Our bill also recognizes the policing activity made by the U.S. Park 
Police by providing, for the first time, funds to reimburse the Park 
Police for their major contributions to public safety.
  Regarding Federal funds, the bill provides a total $827 million, 
including: $180 million in Federal contribution to the District, $169 
million to corrections for operations, $302 million to corrections for 
facilities, $123 million for courts, $23 million for pre-trial 
services, $5.4 million for police merit raise, $2.6 million for 
firefighters payraise, $12.5 million for Park Police, $7 million for 
Parental Choice Educational Scholarships, $1 million for District 
Educational Learning Technology Advancement Council [DELTA Council], 
and $2 million for the DC Inspector General.
  The windfall of $235,000,000 realized from the Revitalization Act is 
allocated as follows: $200 million in deficit reduction, $30 million in 
PAYGo street and school repairs, and $5 million in management 
performance fund.
  In the bill we establish a D.C. taxpayer relief fund and require that 
any District revenue in excess of estimates be deposited into the fund. 
It is estimated that perhaps $75 will be deposited. Tax cuts will be 
enacted by the District City Council based on the recommendations of 
the D.C. Tax Revision Commission and the Business Regulatory Reform 
Commission. The bill also moves up to $100 million in fiscal year 1999 
management savings initiatives to fiscal year 1998, savings realized 
devoted to deficit reduction.
  In addition the bill includes several other provisions.
  Law School: Fully funds UDC School of Law contingent upon receive 
full and unconditional accreditation. If accreditation is not received 
by February 28, 1998, school closes and remaining funds re for D.C. 
resident student scholarships at area law schools.
  Davis-Bacon waiver, Permits D.C. public schools to waive Davis-Bacon 
requirements for school construction and repairs, saving the District 
up to 20 percent. Similar waiver have been granted for natural disaster 
like Hurricane Hugo, the D.C. school situation is a man made disaster 
but a disaster nevertheless.
  Pennsylvania Avenue reopening: At the recommendation of a District 
City Council Member, the bill re-opens that section of Pennsylvania 
Avenue in front of the White House to traffic. The closure has 
disrupted the flow of traffic and impeded citizen access to the White 
House.
  Welfare Cap: Places District Council enacted welfare caps--holding 
payments to the higher of surrounding jurisdictions--into that portion 
of the D.C. Code which is unamendable by the District Council. This 
provision ensures that the District will not again become a welfare 
payment magnet.
  Medical Malpractice Reform: District physicians continue to pay 
medical malpractice premiums as much as two times greater than in 
neighboring States, reducing the number of physicians willing to 
practice in the city and limiting access to health care. The bill's 
$250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, and joint and several liability 
reform could reduce such premium by 20 percent. Five of the District's 
thirteen hospitals operated at a loss last year, and the cash strapped 
city government paid $15 million in tort recoveries last year.
  The District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the country with 
no limits on malpractice awards.
  Repeal of National Education Association Tax Exemption: The bill 
eliminate the property tax exemption for the National Education 
Association. Currently, some 34 organizations are congressionally 
chartered and exempt from paying District of Columbia property taxes. 
Only one, the National Education is a labor union. The NEA has 
announced that it agrees, it principal to pay it's one million, one 
hundred thousand dollar tax bill.
  There are many changes in this legislation that are very much needed, 
and many of the provisions are not in the Senate bill.

                              {time}  1300

  The Senate bill does not restrict pay raises to those teachers who 
have valid teaching credentials. The House bill does. The House bill 
also on a bipartisan basis strengthens the independence of the 
District's inspector general and chief financial officer so they can 
carry out their duties without interference. The Senate does not.
  The House bill also tightens up the use of detailees and requires the 
user office to pay for the detailees. This is very much needed based on 
recent reports showing certain city offices with more employees than 
they admit to. The Senate bill does not address this issue.
  The House bill also caps the outrageous tort awards which are driving 
medical providers out of the District and making medical care more 
difficult and more expensive to get. The Senate bill does not.
  The House bill also cuts the size of the Mayor's security in half, 
from 30 members to 15, and puts those highly trained police officers on 
the street to go after criminals. The Senate bill allows the mayor to 
keep the largest security detail in the Nation.
  The House bill gives the city important tools to improve its finances 
by allowing for the recovery of fees and costs for bad checks and by 
clarifying the city's authority over unclaimed property. These are 
tools that are essential if the city is to improve its finances. The 
Senate bill is silent on those issues.

[[Page H8754]]

  The Senate bill does not provide the District with the authority to 
make direct deposits for all payments. The House bill does. The House 
bill makes sure that the congressionally created Control Board is 
audited and that the funds it earns as interest are appropriated by 
this body. The Senate bill does not.
  The House bill caps the District's welfare payments at the higher of 
the surrounding jurisdictions. The Senate bill permits the District to 
raise welfare payments to as high as 50 percent above the surrounding 
jurisdictions, once more making Washington the welfare capital of 
America.
  The House bill includes language restoring fairness in the 
application of the local property tax among labor organizations in the 
District. This provision will generate an additional $1.3 million in 
local tax revenues. The Senate bill does not address this issue at all.
  Those are just a few of the differences between the House and the 
Senate bills. The work that we provide in this bill is certainly 
commendable. We urge Members' support for this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to 
express my appreciation for the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Taylor] and the work that he has put into this appropriations bill.
  He and I do disagree on many of the provisions in this bill and, in 
fact, on many of the issues considered by this Congress. We come from 
different parts of the country and very different congressional 
districts. We have very different ideologies, philosophies, and 
influences that govern our decisions. Despite all of this and despite 
our disagreements, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] and 
his staff have been honest, forthright, and fair throughout 
consideration of this bill.
  I am also deeply impressed with the way that the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Taylor] has been able to bounce back from his stroke last 
summer. Such an ailment would challenge any of us as we try to continue 
to resume a normal life. Through it all, he has not only worked to 
resume his responsibilities as a Member of the House but has also 
carried forth his responsibilities as chairman of the District of 
Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee.
  I say to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], he has 
remained a gentleman from the day he took over as chairman of this 
subcommittee, and I appreciate the opportunity to have worked with him.
  Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act is never an 
easy bill to pass. The Congress has the responsibility to ensure that 
Federal funds appropriated to the District of Columbia are spent 
wisely. We have the responsibility to ensure that congressionally 
created entities operate properly. We have the statutory responsibility 
to approve the local expenditure of locally raised revenues.
  Yet, some Members are willing to abdicate that responsibility and 
vote against the District of Columbia Appropriations Act unless, they 
can interject national and ideological issues into this debate. The 
District of Columbia Appropriations Act is the smallest appropriations 
bill, yet it becomes a magnet for controversial and extraneous riders.
  Congress has never been able to resist the opportunity to play city 
council for a day and impose its will on this city. In fact, when I 
first ran for Congress in 1990, my opponent boasted of how he attached 
a rider to the D.C. bill that prohibited the University of the District 
of Columbia from spending money to buy a controversial painting. My 
colleagues may remember that issue. He probably does. That was 6 years 
ago.
  Every Member, well, not every Member, but a number of Members attempt 
to advance their own political careers at the expense of the District 
of Columbia.
  Since then, I have seen amendment after amendment being offered to 
the D.C. appropriations bill that addressed national or ideologic 
concerns. Prohibitions on the use of funds for abortion, prohibitions 
on the use of funds to allow individuals to include domestic partners 
in their health insurance policies have been perennial amendments.
  In fact, they have become so common that the District of Columbia's 
city council is unwilling to fight them anymore and already included 
these riders in their own budget submission. So all those issues that 
have been given that they have accepted them, they are already in the 
D.C. Council's budget.
  Recently, there have been amendments on vouchers, on charter schools, 
on Davis-Bacon. In the Senate, there have been amendments changing the 
Senate procedures on the use of holds. Now, what does that have to do 
with the District of Columbia changing an arcane procedure within the 
District's own rules? That is not even relevant to the House, never 
mind the Nation or the District of Columbia. But it was an amendment 
that was attempted to be attached to this bill.
  The House bill is more of the same. The actual appropriations 
language in the bill ends on page 27. The next 102 pages is dedicated 
to general provisions. Think of that. The appropriations process is 
concluded after 27 pages, and then we have got 102 pages trying to do 
what is properly under the purview of the authorizing committee and 
does not belong in an appropriations bill.
  Some of the provisions are good. I would like to see some of these 
things enacted. Some of them are clearly wrong. Almost all of them go 
beyond the city's request, and they interject ancillary issues into 
this debate.
  Now, in defense of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], I 
have to say that the bill we are dealing with today is much better than 
the bill that was considered by the subcommittee. Of course, that is 
faint praise, since the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] put 
those provisions in the subcommittee. But we have been able to work 
closely together and we have struck those provisions that cut the local 
budget by $300 million. It would have reduced the city employment by 
more than 2,000 positions and imposed a residency requirement on city 
employees.
  Those issues were struck. Those are not part of this bill, and that 
is very fortunate. But the manager's amendment that we will offer today 
still is necessary, because that further does improve this bill, stakes 
out more things that we both now agree ought not to be in the bill. It 
strikes a number of provisions that have unintended consequences, 
things that we never intended to do, that would have adverse 
consequences on the District or are simply not appropriate for 
inclusion in the bill.
  But there remains, Mr. Chairman, much more to be done. And that is 
why I will be offering a substitute amendment that will not only remove 
the remaining problems in this bill but will also ensure that we can 
actually pass the bill and have it enacted into law before the 
continuing resolution expires.
  We owe that to this country, to the responsibility we assume as 
national representatives in this Congress, and we certainly owe it to 
the District of Columbia residents to give the District of Columbia its 
spending bill, not to force them into a continuing resolution situation 
where the Control Board cannot even issue any long-term contracts it is 
going to cost them much more money to operate. It is not right to force 
them into a continuing resolution situation.
  The only way to avoid that is to agree to the amendment that brings 
us back to the Senate version. We have 3 more working days before the 
existing congressional continuing resolution expires. Let us pass my 
substitute amendment and get this bill signed into law during those 3 
days.
  After that has passed, we will have plenty of time to debate school 
vouchers, Davis-Bacon, medical malpractice, welfare caps, prohibiting 
helicopter flights, restricting the use of automobiles under 26 miles 
per gallon, new financial management system contracts, charter school 
leases, cutting school administrators, closing Pennsylvania Avenue, 
repealing the NEA's tax exemption, restricting the ability to fire the 
chief financial officer and the Inspector General, and every other 
ancillary provision that have been added to this appropriations bill.

[[Page H8755]]

  Nobody wants me to repeat that long, long list again. But it makes a 
point. Those are all issues that do not belong in this bill. I support 
many of these provisions, though. I mean, I would like to see them 
done. Get them done by the authorizing committee.
  I would also support, though, the District's Control Board. We set it 
up. It is doing a good job. The District's authorizing committee knew 
what they were doing. They have a responsibility. Let them fulfill 
their responsibility. Let local governments, this is a basic 
fundamental Republican premise, let local governments plan their own 
affairs. Let them raise their own revenue, and let them spend their own 
money. Let them best determine how to serve their citizens. It is their 
responsibility under our democratic form of government. Let them 
fulfill their responsibility. Let us fulfill our responsibility.
  Support my amendment that will let us go back to the Senate version, 
which is the consensus budget. Get the bill enacted. Do the right 
thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, of course taking the suggestion of the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], we could just abolish the House and just let the 
Senate make our determinations and we could all go home. But many of us 
think we have additional ideas that we would like to put forth.
  There is some hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman, about the items that we have 
inserted here. First of all, the Constitution lays at the steps of the 
Congress, the management of the District of Columbia. It is our full 
responsibility. And we can certainly work with the city council and the 
administration, but we bear the responsibility for legislation for the 
Nations Capital.
  Second, many times it serves the minority's interests well when they 
do not go with the city, and sometimes they want to go with the city. 
For instance, the administration, without any consultation with 
Congress, without any consultation with the city council, closed a 
section of Pennsylvania Avenue, at great inconvenience to the people of 
this city.
  Now, without getting into the debate, I have put language in our bill 
to reopen, that closed section because we have no evidence that that 
was closed with good reason.

                              {time}  1315

  We think that the city council, which has asked us to insert the 
reopening provision is acting within their powers and that they should 
be consulted since this being a city street rather than just the 
administration making the decision.
  Also, Congress enacted a few years ago on a bill that moved the 
city's residency requirement for its 30,000 employees to live within 
the city. The District wanted to keep that residency requirement. It 
was the Congress that removed that, as it was pandering to the unions, 
and that has worked a severe hardship upon the city.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think the diligence of the chairman, 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], is extraordinary, 
especially in the case of his medical problem, and he has fought back, 
and I want to thank the chairman.
  I would also like to thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. As he knows, I just gave Mary a box of candy 
from California and there is another one where that comes from, I would 
say to the gentleman, to sweeten him up.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Livingston], the chairman of the full committee. I have never voted for 
a D.C. bill in the 6 years I have been here, because it has been 
general practice to just have business as normal. The gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] says, ``Well, Duke, you complain about it. 
If you think it is broke, fix it.'' So I get my pittance on the D.C. 
appropriations bill, but I want to tell my colleagues something that is 
rewarding: The gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] has been 
wonderful, and I even thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 
his mellowing in his later years.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to Members, and I realize that on the 
political side of this, it is difficult. It is difficult in some cases 
for our Republican Members to go against the special interests of the 
unions. I understand it is difficult for Members on the other side at 
the same time, and I have talked to them about it. The actual issues, 
they wish they could support, but they cannot.
  Mr. Chairman, when we talk about campaign finance reform, we talk 
about the essence of it is taking out special interests so that we can 
actually help. I would also like to thank the gentlewoman that 
represents the District [Ms. Norton]. Although we may disagree on 
issues, she was there, she participated with her city. She had 
hearings, she was present, she is not on the subcommittee, but yet she 
took the time to show up and do that.
  I think it is just a shame, though, that in the case of special 
interests that we cannot pass legislation, or we may have difficulty 
passing legislation that will actually help the city, will help 
children, will help parents, and I think that the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Taylor], the chairman of the subcommittee, has done a 
good job.
  But what have we tried to do? I want to assure my friends on the 
other side, although we may talk about ideology, and there may be some 
portions in this, I want to tell my colleagues that my motives are 
pure. I want to get the most amount of dollars down to a school system 
to where the school, the average is 86 years old, and they have to 
replace school roofs. A lot of the schools, the fire department has had 
to take over because they are dangerous. And if we can get the maximum 
amount of dollars into those schools, and it has been proven time and 
time again in many, many States by waiving Davis-Bacon for school 
construction that we save a lot of dollars, and that is the intent. 
This is an emergency situation. It is not ideological to me. To look at 
charter schools, in which many cases the unions blasted charter 
schools, but I think the sweeping, overwhelming good that they do and 
allowing the District of Columbia to go into those, I think it is a 
benefit.
  There is an union group that is exempt from taxes. It will get $1.3 
million a year into the school system. That is good. It gets more money 
to upgrade the computers, because when we have schools that age, I 
guarantee my colleagues that the technology and the science equipment, 
the math, and we have large amounts of students that do not even finish 
and graduate from those schools, we have to do something to help that 
and to get the most amount of dollars to do that.
  We recognize the Jime Escolonti type of teachers by increasing the 
funding for those teachers that are credentialed. There are many, and I 
have met them because I live in the District of Columbia, and there are 
many good teachers in Washington, DC, but yet they are plagued by 
teachers that are not, like in many of our innermost cities, and we 
want to recognize those that do a good job and reward them for that.
  But I think most of all that there is an area in which parents feel 
like they are hopeless. Children do not have a chance, and I would like 
to read this. It is from Dr. King. He said,

       In this spirit, House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas 
     and Representative Floyd Flake, a Democrat from New York, and 
     several other Congressmen have proposed the District of 
     Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act.

  Low-income, low-income parents that feel denied will have a chance, 
for the first time, to offer their children a chance at a good 
education.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking Democrat on the full 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my first assignment in this House was the 
District of Columbia appropriations subcommittee after I went on the 
Committee on Appropriations, and I have seen the Congress for many 
years treat the District of Columbia almost as its private plantation.
  The very first fight I ever had in this House was when the Congress 
tried to hold up money for construction of the D.C. subway until they 
could reach agreement that the District of Columbia would proceed to 
build more highways and another bridge into Georgetown. I thought that 
kind of leverage

[[Page H8756]]

was improper then, and I think it is improper now.
  We have a problem when Congress tries to impose its own judgment on 
how the city ought to run. We are providing governance without 
representation, because when we make decisions that affect the lives of 
people in the District of Columbia, they have no remedy if we make the 
wrong decision because they cannot vote us out of office. That is why 
it is essential for the Congress to exercise restraint in its oversight 
of the District of Columbia.
  Now, I have seen a lot of efforts through the years to have this 
Congress micromanage the District. This bill, in my view, is the worst 
effort that I have ever seen on the part of the Congress in all of the 
years I have been here, going back to the time when this Congress held 
up for 2 years needed money to build the subway until the subway became 
more expensive because of the delay. I do not believe that it is in the 
public interest of the District or our taxpayers for us to get in the 
way of the ability of the fiscal control board to try to bring order to 
District of Columbia affairs. This bill guts their ability to do that.
  It imposes Congress's judgment on vouchers. It requires vouchers be 
provided in order to send children in some cases to private schools. 
Now, maybe they ought to make that judgment, but the Congress should 
not make that judgment when they have no recourse if they disagree with 
that judgment. The Congress has overstepped its bounds, in my view, in 
a good many areas which the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has 
already described.
  The issue here in my view is not whether some of these policy 
judgments should have been arrived at; the issue is who should arrive 
at those judgments. It is not the Congress; it is the fiscal control 
board which was appointed to do the job.
  So what the Moran amendment is going to do, instead of unilaterally 
imposing actions on the District, the Moran amendment is going to 
simply ask the House to take the approach already adopted by Senator 
Faircloth, hardly a raving left-wing radical; it takes the approach 
which he has suggested and would substitute that for the approach taken 
by the subcommittee.
  Under ordinary circumstances, I do not like to do that, because I do 
not like to adopt Senate judgments without further consideration. But 
given the gross committee overreaching in this case, by dictating to 
the District on what it ought to do on airplane flights, what it ought 
to do on the District of Columbia Law School, what it ought to do on 
other financial arrangements, it gives us no choice but to look for a 
more responsible way, and that more responsible way has been pointed 
out by Senator Faircloth. So in my view, we ought to adopt the Moran 
amendment.
  In addition to being the right thing to do, it is the one thing that 
will produce a real bill. We will not produce a real bill by having the 
Congress dictate to the District of Columbia. We will produce a real 
bill, which demonstrates that Congress also knows how to exercise 
restraint, because that will enable us to get a bill with a 
presidential signature on it and that the President shall not veto.
  We are now 1 week into the fiscal year. We should not be continuing 
to push our ideological preferences, we should be looking for practical 
solutions. The Moran amendment is that practical solution, and I would 
urge support for it when the time comes.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman 
yielding me this time, and I thank him for one of the most thankless 
tasks in Congress, and that is chairing the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia of the Committee on Appropriations; and also the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], my friend from my neighboring 
district.
  I actually share a lot of concerns that my friend from Virginia has 
expressed in terms of this bill over-authorizing and in some areas 
going contrary to where these authorizers have gone. We want to 
strengthen the control board. They have cut over $100 million from the 
city budget over the last 2 years, I think very constructive financial 
abilities, and there have been some misrepresentations to the contrary.
  There have been some comments made that we could not get the streets 
plowed during the snowstorm and the big blizzard and the control board 
could have paid the bills directly. This legislation would not allow 
that, because they would have to come back to Congress to reprogram 
under contracts. Of course at the time of the big blizzard, the control 
board was not even up and operating.
  Nevertheless, there are some very good things in this bill that the 
chairman has put in. He has attempted to work and try to bring us 
closer together on issues on which we have disagreed, and I want to 
thank him and express my appreciation for that.
  Two years ago, consistent with my sponsorship of the law creating the 
control board for the District of Columbia, I supported what was then 
known as the Gunderson amendment. This was sponsored by our former 
colleague, Steve Gunderson, and it sought to enact educational reforms 
in the District.
  Along with the education commission of the States, I believed then 
and I believe now that low-income scholarships are a good vehicle for 
providing poor students with choices and opportunities more financially 
advantaged children enjoy, thus promoting equity. While many of the 
Gunderson reforms were enacted, this one was not, and at that time a 
Senate filibuster eventually killed the proposal.
  Today, the opponents of opportunity scholarships in the District of 
Columbia find themselves in an ever-shrinking minority of public 
opinion. Opponents are increasingly hard-pressed to justify their 
obstruction to change. Though many opponents of reform send their own 
children to private schools, they persist in standing in the 
schoolhouse door when it comes to poor children in the District of 
Columbia.
  I stand with those who want to open the schoolhouse door. I stand 
with my colleagues in this House, like the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Flake], and colleagues in the Senate like Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, 
and Pat Moynihan. I stand with advocates like Alveda King,, the niece 
of Martin Luther King, who supports scholarships of this type as 
fulfilling the dreams of her uncle.
  Only the ostrich who sticks his head in the sand would deny that our 
public schools in our urban centers are in crisis. In the District, 
eighth grade test scores are 79-percent below the national average for 
math and 29-percent below the national average for reading. That is why 
the control board created an emergency board of trustees last year. 
They are continuing to struggle with crises as diverse as violence, 
leaky roofs, and poor attendance, and for the fourth straight year 
schools were not able to open on time in the District of Columbia.
  The reforms contained in the D.C. appropriations bill would provide 
$7 million for student opportunity scholarships, and some 2,000 poor 
kids would benefit.

                              {time}  1330

  Parents would have to apply for the money. Nobody is making them 
apply for the money, but it gives them the opportunity that the rest of 
us have. I dare say not one Member of Congress sends their kids to 
public schools. We would like to extend these opportunities to some of 
the poorest in our urban centers.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I thank the gentleman for his very hard work for the District 
of Columbia. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] for 
his hard work as well, and I want to say that what I will say today is 
in no way meant to detract from the hard work and good faith that both 
the chairman and the ranking member have shown as they have worked for 
this budget.
  I do hold up the statement of policy of the administration to tell 
Members why there are at least a half-a-dozen reasons why this bill 
will be vetoed. When we are talking about the Capital of the United 
States, which is on its

[[Page H8757]]

knees, we ought to be after a bill that will be passed swiftly.
  On behalf of the people of the District of Columbia, I rise to ask 
for Members' support for the Moran substitute. I do so because the bill 
before us violates basic democratic principles, will cripple the 
District's recovery, and will undermine the difficult job we ourselves 
have given to the Control Board, whose efforts have the respect and 
confidence of the majority of this body.
  The substitute we offer is not a Democratic substitute. The 
substitute is the work of North Carolina Senator Lauch Faircloth, who 
has been described as the most conservative Member of the U.S. Senate. 
I can tell Members all about that. In negotiations on the D.C. rescue 
package just before the balanced budget bill, I was unable to keep the 
Senator from taking down much of home rule and putting the Control 
Board in charge of the city.
  The Senator's bill largely respects home rule, but not because he 
cares about that. Rather, it is because the Control Board and the 
District submitted a consensus budget that is itself so conservative a 
document that even the North Carolina Senator found no reason to 
substantially alter it.
  While Members here are lining up for ways to spend a predicted 
surplus, the Senate supported the District appropriation because the 
District uses its surplus largely to pay down debt. The Senate bill 
supported the District's decision to come into balance a year early. It 
is the prudent, even conservative, fiscal policy that is at the core of 
the Moran substitute that has recommended it across party lines. It was 
reported out of the Senate Committee on Appropriations 26 to 1.
  Vouchers, of course, is the House bill's high profile controversial 
provision, but the people from Members' districts already know what to 
do when that issue is put to them: 20 referenda, 20 defeats. I have 
already called the roll on that during the rule.
  For 30 years residents from States in the north and south, east and 
west, have rejected vouchers. Even when the voucher advocates lose, 
however, they double back and lose again, always by more than they lost 
the first time. In California they lost first by 61 percent, and then 
by 70 percent; in Washington State, first by 61 percent and then by 65 
percent; in Massachusetts, first by 62 percent, and then they lost by 
70 percent. They cannot win for losing, Mr. Chairman.
  Here in the District the vote against vouchers was the largest of 
all, an almost unanimous 89 percent. Unable to trump that, the majority 
asked that we substitute a Republican-worded poll for the votes of the 
people I represent.
  I respectfully disagree with the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], who suggested during debate on the rule that the vote in D.C. 
was not a voucher vote. It was exactly that. D.C. residents rejected a 
tax credit for parents who would send their children to private or 
religious schools, money that otherwise would have gone to the 
District's general fund. A voucher by any other name is still a 
voucher, and until D.C. residents vote again on this issue, this body 
cannot impose vouchers without wiping away each and every claim they 
have to American principles of democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a compendium of provisions the 
majority has been unable to pass despite their control of both Houses: 
vouchers, medical liability, Davis-Bacon. The strategy is simple: find 
a jurisdiction that cannot fight back and simply impose their will, 
like any old dictatorship; find a jurisdiction whose delegate votes you 
seized and work your will. They call themselves a devolution Congress? 
Shame on them. If they pass this bill, they will be unable to make any 
claim to devolution or democracy. I say to the Members, if you want 
these ideologically charged measures, do them on your own dime with 
your open bill for your own majority, not on the backs of the taxpaying 
residents that I represent.
  The ideological baggage may be the most apparent, but it is not the 
most appalling. After all, the majority often cannot resist ideological 
targets but it has refrained from targeting the five distinguished 
citizens who sit on the Control Board. Not content to go after city 
officials, this bill unwinds much of the most painstaking and vital 
work of the Control Board. The bill does reckless damage, to name only 
some of the most irrational provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following Statement of 
Administration Policy:
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                  Washington, DC, October 9, 1997.

  Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 2607--District of Columbia 
                      Appropriations Bill, FY 1998

       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on H.R. 2607, the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Bill, FY 1998, as reported by the House 
     Appropriations Committee. Your consideration of the 
     Administration's views would be appreciated.
       The Administration strongly opposes section 342 of the 
     Committee bill, which would provide for the use of $7 million 
     in Federal taxpayer funds for private school vouchers. 
     Instead of investing additional resources in public schools, 
     vouchers would allow a few selected students to attend 
     private schools, and would draw attention away from the hard 
     work of reforming public schools that serve the overwhelming 
     majority of D.C. students. Establishing a private school 
     voucher system in the Nation's Capital would set a dangerous 
     precedent for using Federal taxpayer funds for schools that 
     are not accountable to the public. If this language were 
     included in the bill presented to the President, the 
     President's senior advisers would recommend that the 
     President veto the bill.
       While the Administration appreciates the support of the 
     Committee in developing a bill that provides sufficient 
     Federal funding to implement the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1977 
     (the Revitalization Act), we strongly oppose a number of the 
     provisions of the Committee bill, as described below. Even if 
     the provision concerning school vouchers were to be stricken, 
     the Committee bill would remain unacceptable. Unless the 
     Administration's concerns are satisfactorily resolved, the 
     President's senior advisers would recommend that the 
     President veto the bill. The Administration urges the House 
     to approve the Moran substitute amendment, which would 
     address a number of the concerns detailed below.


                          pennsylvania avenue

       The Administration strongly opposes section 159 of the 
     bill, which would require that Pennsylvania Avenue in front 
     of the White House be opened on January 1, 1998. On May 20, 
     1995, the Department of the Treasury implemented the security 
     action to prohibit vehicular traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue 
     between 15th and 17th Streets. A White House Security Review 
     concluded that there was no alternative to prohibiting 
     vehicular traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue that would ensure 
     the protection of the President of the United States, the 
     first family, and those working in or visiting the White 
     House Complex from explosive devices carried in vehicles near 
     the perimeter. The Committee's action would jeopardize the 
     safety of those inside the White House Complex.


                       public assistance payments

       The Administration opposes section 149 of the bill, which 
     would prohibit the District from increasing public assistance 
     payments under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
     Program beyond the level provided under the District of 
     Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982. This restriction is 
     inconsistent with the broad flexibility provided under 
     Federal welfare reform and could hinder the District's 
     efforts to invest resources in areas necessary to move 
     individuals off welfare and into work.


                            davis-bacon act

       The Administration strongly opposes section 363 of the 
     Committee bill. As drafted, this provision would permit 
     waiver of the application of the Davis-Bacon Act to 
     construction and repair work for the District of Columbia 
     schools. Waiving these protections would deny payment of 
     locally prevailing wages to workers on Federally funded 
     construction sites. The Administration supports the Sabo 
     amendment to strike this provision.


                                abortion

       The Administration strongly opposes the abortion language 
     of the Committee bill, which would prohibit the use of both 
     Federal and District funds to pay for abortions except in 
     those cases where the life of the mother is endangered or in 
     situations involving rape or incest. Further, the Department 
     of Justice has advised that the language would be 
     unconstitutional regarding funds provided to the District of 
     Columbia Corrections Trustee, to the extent the language 
     places an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an 
     abortion. The Administration continues to view the 
     prohibition on the use of local funds as an unwarranted 
     intrusion into the affairs of the District and would support 
     an amendment, if offered, to strike this prohibition.


                            Micromanagement

       The Administration opposes the provisions of the Committee 
     bill, that would further restrict or otherwise condition 
     management of the District government and expenditure of 
     funds, thereby undercutting the Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority's (the Authority's) oversight 
     role and responsibility for the District's annual budget.

[[Page H8758]]

       Specifically, the Administration opposes provisions of the 
     bill that would require the District to direct surplus FY 
     1998 revenues to a taxpayer relief fund and earmark $200 
     million in local funds for deficit reduction. These 
     provisions do not reflect the consensus agreement reached by 
     the Authority, the Council, and the Executive Branch on the 
     FY 1998 budget for the District. Moreover, Congress has given 
     to the Authority the responsibility for guiding the District 
     toward long-term financial health, and that role should not 
     be undercut by unnecessary micromanagement.
       The Administration also opposes a provision that would 
     amend the District's tort laws and impose a cap on punitive 
     damages at an arbitrary level. The Administration believes 
     that these limits undermine the very purpose of punitive 
     damages, which is to punish and deter misconduct. 
     Furthermore, the Administration strongly opposes any 
     differentiation between so-called ``economic'' and ``non-
     economic'' damages. ``Non-economic'' damages are just as 
     real as economic damages, and limiting them imposes a 
     hardship on the most vulnerable members of our society.
       In addition, we oppose House language that would restrict 
     the District's authority to improve its financial management 
     systems. The District has been told by Congress, by the 
     General Accounting Office, and by the Administration for some 
     time that it needs to improve its financial management 
     systems. The DC Chief Financial Officer and the Authority 
     have taken steps to implement the necessary improvements. The 
     Congress should not use this appropriations bill to block 
     those efforts.


                      TREASURY BORROWING AUTHORITY

       The Committee bill includes language that would prohibit 
     the District from borrowing to finance its accumulated 
     general fund deficit. It is not uncommon for cities 
     recovering from severe cash flow problems to finance 
     accumulated deficits through long-term borrowing. The 
     Revitalization Act allows the District to borrow up to $300 
     million from Treasury for deficit financing if the District 
     can show that it does not have private market access. The 
     District needs the flexibility to use the treasury window for 
     long-term borrowing in case the private markets are not 
     accessible.


               D.C. COURTS AND OFFENDER SERVICES FUNDING

       The Administration strongly opposes language in the 
     Committee bill that provides for funding the District of 
     Columbia Courts and Offender Services through the Office of 
     Management and Budget. The Administration urges the Committee 
     to consider passing funding through stand alone accounts. The 
     Administration's original proposal called for funding to be 
     passed through the State Justice Institute.
       Additionally, the Administration would recommend that the 
     House include language that would make available funds 
     collected by the District of Columbia Courts for necessary 
     expenses, including the funding of pension costs.
       The Administration is committed to working with the House 
     to produce a bill that will assist the District in its 
     continued efforts toward financial recovery.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded not to characterize individual 
Members of the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of our full 
committee.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman who just spoke cares 
deeply about the lives of the constituents that she represents and 
about the welfare of this great city. I think to charge the majority 
with the label of being ideologically motivated, though, is unfair. I 
heard it from the gentleman from Wisconsin as well.
  The fact is I do not think it is ideological to say to the NEA that 
is housed in a great big facility here in the city, that they ought to 
pay taxes like everybody else. I do not think it is ideological to try 
to tell the parents of a youngster who is bound to go to a school that 
has proven itself inferior and incapable of delivering a decent 
education. It is in these schools where the youngster is effectively 
sentenced to try to survive in that school, which in turn yields a high 
probability that he may ultimately be sentenced to prison, if he 
survives. I do not think it is ideological to say that he should have 
another opportunity to go to another school.
  I do not think it is ideological to say that we should come up with a 
system that makes it cheaper to build new schools, or repair older 
schools so they can be habitable for youngsters, rather than being 
bound and hogtied by ideological Davis-Bacon laws that say that you 
have to pay higher wages and thus have less money to repair the 
facilities.
  I do not think it is ideological to say that a law school ought to 
quit conning its students, giving them diplomas that they cannot use, 
and simply get itself accredited, so it gives the people that 
participate in the enrollment in that school an opportunity for a 
quality legal education. Those are not ideological propositions. They 
are simply common sense.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would make it clear that the National Education 
Association has agreed to pay all of its property taxes, and in fact, 
in this bill, it would do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  First, Mr. Chairman, let me say to the ranking member that I can 
clearly understand the most difficult job that he has in this bill.
  To the chairman of the subcommittee, I have great respect for him. I 
just think that he is entirely wrong on this issue, and I admire the 
way and the courage the gentleman has shown in coming back and 
improving his own health.
  Let me say that this is a very, very sorry hour for the House of 
Representatives. I am reminded of the song that ``It Cuts Both Ways,'' 
because men and women on this floor have tried to cut it both ways. 
When they wanted something, they stuck it in the bill, whether it was 
on my right or on my left.
  We had a concept of home rule, and I will take my fair share of the 
blame for not moving faster. But I worshipped at the altar of home 
rule. We decided that we wanted to place an intermediary between us and 
Congress, and we put a Financial Control Board in place. This bill has 
taken us from home rule back to the plantation for 600,000 people.
  If Members listen to what our chairman said, the things in this bill 
stem from City Council actions. There will be a time today that we will 
have a chance to speak on the voucher system and have a healthy 
discussion. The gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Cunningham], I 
appreciate that he is operating in good will.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] has 
attacked the Control Board in a Dear Colleague letter that he sent out, 
the instrument that Congress set up. Why? Because he does not like a 
lot of the things that it has done.
  Just for one second, let me contrast that with part of the voucher 
system. The Control Board is selected by the President. All the D.C. 
residents receive no money. They work at this for nothing. It is a 
labor of love. These are people who have good backgrounds from diverse 
areas and do not need this.
  In the voucher system, we compensate them for reviewing and giving 
out 2,000 vouchers no more than $5,000 a year. Instead of letting the 
District appoint these people, the Speaker and the majority leader in 
the Senate give a list to the President of the United States to decide 
on who should get 2,000 vouchers. What are we kidding ourselves about 
here? We are not interested in improving the quality of the public or 
private schools; we are interested in beating our own political horse 
here.
  If Members listen to the rhetoric of my good friend, the gentleman 
from southern California, as I said before, it was loaded with purr and 
snarl words: ``The labor bosses;'' he even called the gentleman 
carrying the rule, the chairman of the DNC.
  Let us get serious about what we are doing here. If we want to take 
back home rule, let us do it cleanly, but let us not do it in this very 
obscure way.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me for the purposes of having a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that he is to be commended for 
the work that he has done, the outstanding efforts and hard work in 
bringing this bill to the floor, and during that time, for being such a 
shock absorber for the media criticism that he has received. The same 
goes for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  I have brought to the attention of the chairman and to the D.C. 
appropriations a bill that would prevent two

[[Page H8759]]

individuals who are unmarried from adopting a child. This amendment has 
been included in the House version of the D.C. appropriations bill in 
the past. I feel that the responsible adoption amendment should be 
included in the fiscal year 1998 bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's concerns, and I will make every effort to accommodate the 
gentleman's request in conference.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to myself.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say that I will make every effort to ensure 
that provision is not accommodated in conference, for what it is worth.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. 
Stabenow].
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on 
a subject that, while it affects the District of Columbia, it affects 
the entire country.
  Mr. Chairman, those of us in Michigan care very deeply about the 
children of the District of Columbia and this city. I want to first 
congratulate the very effective voice of the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia [Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton], the Delegate, for her 
advocacy on behalf of her constituency. This in particular to me is a 
philosophical debate, an ideological debate around the issue of 
education. This is the provision I wish to speak to today in strong 
opposition in this bill.
  We saw this year children starting school 3 weeks late, some later, 
because the roof was falling in in some D.C. schools.

                              {time}  1345

  The Republican ideology says the response is to send 3 percent of the 
children to private schools with vouchers. The Democratic response is, 
fix the roof. Fix the roof. Support public education. Care about all of 
the children, not just 3 percent that would be given the opportunity to 
go to private schools through the vouchers in this bill.
  We have today in USA Today a headline, ``Schools struggle to utilize 
technology.'' Only a fraction of America's schools are integrating 
technology to benefit their students, says an alliance of prominent 
business and education leaders, the CEO Forum.
  I mention this because the $7 million in this bill that goes to 3 
percent of the children for vouchers would rewire 65 public schools in 
the District of Columbia for children. This is about a commitment for 
all children in the District of Columbia to be successful and compete 
in that world economy that they will face.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I am an educator. I have spent 30 years of my 
life in education, and I have long opposed vouchers generally, but I 
have favored vouchers to build competition within public schools. Mr. 
Chairman, we are in such a crisis in this city that I will vote today 
to support vouchers.
  In the 1960's, I lived in the District. My two children went to 
desegregated public schools. They received a first rate education. But 
since the 1960's, we have had a failure in management, a failure in 
discipline, a failure in overcoming dilapidated quarters, and that is 
part of our problem.
  Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot let another generation of African-
American students get out of school improperly educated so they do not 
have any opportunities in this society. I think it has come to the 
point where we have to face reality, and reality is to give a shock to 
that system and get the job done and get back to education.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Moran] for allowing me to speak and also for his hard work. I also 
would like to recognize the work of the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. Chairman, although I disagree with much in the bill, I do agree 
that we do need to give a raise to our local police officers in the 
District of Columbia, and that is included in the bill. For that, I am 
appreciative.
  On the other hand, I do take great exception to this notion of 
vouchers that is included in the bill. We should make no mistake; when 
we hear the Republicans say they are providing scholarships, which 
sounds like a great idea, they are not; they are providing vouchers, 
which takes taxpayers' money out of public schools and puts that 
taxpayers' money into private schools. I think that is wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia government is not without its 
shortcomings. I represent Prince George's and Montgomery Counties. I am 
their neighbor, and I know. But they have also made tremendous 
progress. The fact of the matter is, the District of Columbia is not a 
plantation to accommodate the whims of certain Members of Congress, nor 
is it a laboratory in which we can experiment on the people of the 
District of Columbia. It is an elected democratic government, and it 
deserves respect, and it deserves the right to make its own decisions.
  Government does have a role. We in Congress do have a role. We 
exercise that role by putting in place the Control Board to assist in 
the management of the District of Columbia. But now this bill would 
supersede the role of the Control Board and try to micromanage 
government. It does so particularly in the area of vouchers.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill takes $45 million over 5 years out of the 
District of Columbia and it gives it to 2,000 students. That leaves 
behind 76,000 students who need their roof repaired in their schools, 
that need new books, that need technological improvements, that need 
teachers with better pay, that need better overall facilities.
  They say, ``We are doing this to help the poorest of the poor. We are 
doing this to help the people who are really needy.'' The problem is, 
it leaves behind the middle class, the working class, the people who 
pay the taxes in the District of Columbia. Their children do not get 
the benefit of this latest experiment, and, again, I think that that is 
wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that this body adopt the Moran substitute. It is 
a balanced, fair approach, and it respects the sovereignty and dignity 
of the citizens of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire how much 
time we have remaining on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has 4\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] 
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Kilpatrick].
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I offer thanks to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran], our ranking member, for giving me the opportunity 
to come before this body today, as well as to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon], who has shown his leadership as we discuss the 
life of over 600,000 people in this city of ours, our Capital City, who 
have no representation who can vote in this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, 600,000 people, more than 4 States' population, and yet 
they have no vote here in this Congress. And if they did, I do not 
think we would be debating as we are today how they would run their 
schools.
  I stand here opposed to this legislation for many reasons. First of 
all, it repeals the Davis-Bacon provision that says that prevailing 
wages and safety regulations will be had for the workers who work on 
construction and repair projects here in the District of Columbia 
district with over 600,000 people.
  It also closes the UDC Law School. It is not a time to close our law 
school. It is an opportunity for people to go to law school who would 
otherwise not have it. I think it is a tragedy.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill talks about school vouchers. Over 90 percent 
of children in America go to public schools. I am a parent and former 
high school teacher and a graduate of all-public universities. I have 
two children who graduated from public school. One is now a lawyer; the 
other owns her own business. Many of us in this Congress are products 
of public education.
  Why then are we putting our will on over 600,000 people in the 
District of

[[Page H8760]]

Columbia who have said over and over again, and in a vote of over 60 
percent, that they do not want vouchers?
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
[Ms. Norton], Madam D.C. Congresswoman, for your efforts we praise you.
  Mr. Chairman, to all of my colleagues who want to run the District of 
Columbia I say, leave them alone. Give them D.C. statehood. That is 
what they want, 600,000 people, more than the population of four 
States. I think it is unfortunate, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this legislation.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say very quickly that I do not 
think that the debate today is a matter of who cares more about 
children. I think both sides care deeply and passionately about 
children, and that is something to celebrate.
  But I have come to the conclusion that it is not possible for the 
public schools to reform internally without the pressure that is put on 
them from the outside through the concept of competition. I think we 
all need to think about it. The purpose of competition is not to 
destroy the public school, the purpose of competition is to improve the 
public school so that the public school can be a viable institution and 
a critical part of the culture of America.
  But I really believe that without the competition that puts the 
pressure on those within the public school to have to begin to stand 
up, which many are now beginning to do, and bring about the essential 
reforms that are necessary to give our children a chance to become 
successful in life, it is not going to work.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the beginning of a very important debate, and 
ultimately the public will be set free, both private schools will be 
effective and public schools will be improved.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill for 
several important reasons, and I want to congratulate the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the ranking member of this committee, on his 
substitute.
  First, the bill contains a very harmful private school voucher 
provision. I am very concerned that private schools that receive 
Federal funding would not be held accountable to the taxpayers. I am 
also very concerned that funding private religious schools with public 
money is a clear violation of the constitutional principle of state-
church separation.
  As we all know by now, the funding for the bill would provide 
vouchers for approximately 3 percent of all D.C. students. Mr. 
Chairman, I ask my colleagues, what about the other 97 percent who do 
not win this educational sweepstakes? What kind of message does a 
random lottery send to our youth? It tells them that their future is 
based on the luck of the draw, not their effort and ambition and not 
equal opportunity for all.
  Mr. Chairman, in my judgment, the answer is not a limited voucher 
program, it is tougher academic standards, safer school buildings, 
smaller classes, more teacher training.
  This bill also repeals the Davis-Bacon law for D.C. school 
construction projects. This repeal will not improve the District's 
crumbling schools but will discriminate against the District's 
construction workers. These workers deserve to earn a decent wage. A 
recent study, in fact, comparing school construction costs in five 
States with State prevailing wage laws and four States without such 
laws found that costs were actually lower in those States governed by 
State prevailing wages.
  If those on the other side really care about the District's crumbling 
schools, they should support H.R. 1104, the Partnership to Rebuild 
America's Schools, which would provide the District with $15 million to 
rebuild its schools and $5 billion nationwide.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a lot of time to 
reserve.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, with that amount of time I 
really ought to reserve for rebuttal, would be my preference. Perhaps 
the gentleman from North Carolina would like to conclude or at least to 
use up a little more of his.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, we have one remaining 
speaker to close. We have the right to close, I believe, do we not?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has the right to 
close. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Moran, has used approximately 
15 seconds to announce that he would like to say something else. The 
gentleman has 4 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the substitute 
amendment which gives us the Senate bill. The Senate bill means that we 
will have an enacted bill, we will do the right thing by the citizens 
of the District of Columbia and, in my opinion, the right thing by the 
Congress of the United States.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the former chairman of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
District of Columbia, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the 
ranking member, for their hard work.
  Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from North Carolina took over this 
responsibility, I urged him to be bold, and he has been bold. This city 
needs dramatic attention, and this bill provides attention and it 
provides solutions to many of the problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to dedicate my time at the podium to talk 
about this D.C. Opportunity Scholarships Program. Whether we call them 
scholarships or we call them vouchers, they are a lifeline to the poor 
kids in this city and their families.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell my colleagues a little bit about 
my hometown in Syracuse, where I was first married and raised my kids 
in a strong middle-class neighborhood in Syracuse. There were two 
schools, a private school, a parochial school, and public school.
  Mr. Chairman, these two schools competed with each other for the 
kids. The PTO's from each school would go up and down the street 
knocking on doors, encouraging young parents to send their kids to 
their schools. Both schools taught kids, rich and poor and middle-
class.
  The public school had eminently better facilities. They had better 
bonding. They had better gyms. They had better science labs and all 
kinds of better facilities. The Catholic school provided more nurturing 
and discipline. Kids in trouble in one school could leave that school 
and go to the other, and vice versa. All of the kids were served. It 
was great for the kids.
  Mr. Chairman, I am convinced, I am absolutely convinced, that we 
cannot have good public schools if we do not have good private schools.

                              {time}  1400

  We cannot have good private schools if we do not have good public 
schools. In that middle class neighborhood, that worked. In the poor 
neighborhoods, the choice was not there because the poor people could 
not afford the private schools. This will give them that opportunity in 
this city.
  This is not a union vote or an anti-union vote. We have the highest 
respect for teachers. They are a national treasure. They take all of 
society's ills upon their shoulders and try to help these kids to get 
through what otherwise would be a difficult, difficult existence. This 
is not anti-teacher. This is pro-teacher. The teachers need help. Go to 
the inner city schools, go to the public schools, ask the teachers, 
they are stressed out. They are burned out. This will help them. This 
will make their schools better. It will make the entire educational 
system of this country better.
  Specifically, though, we are talking about the District of Columbia. 
The

[[Page H8761]]

teachers want better schools as much as the parents do, if not more so, 
and they are fighting a losing battle. Poor families should have 
choices like moderate income and wealthy families do.
  In Syracuse, our public school superintendent sends his child to a 
private school; so do some of the Members of the school board. They do 
it for the right reasons; that is a good decision. Why? Because they 
could get the education that they want at those schools. In Washington, 
DC, the President of the United States made a decision to send his 
daughter to a private school. Why? I do not care why. That is his 
decision. But he has the resources to do that.
  Why should not poor families have that choice? There is no 
ideological or philosophical argument. There is no argument. To argue 
to the contrary is hypocrisy. There is no solid, firm standing to argue 
for public schools, against vouchers, when they are sending their kids 
to private schools.
  Let us do this for the children. Forget about ideology, forget about 
union or nonunion. This is not that issue. This is about breaking the 
cycle of poverty and violence for the kids in our cities, especially 
this city, this city which we have so much love for and respect for and 
compassion for.
  I do not understand it, Mr. Chairman. I do not understand how anyone 
could argue against this simple program to help some kids in this great 
city.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in part I of House report 
105-315 is adopted and the bill is considered read for the amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of H.R. 2607, as amended by part I of House Report 105-315, 
is as follows:

                               H.R. 2607

       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, 1998, and 
     for other purposes, namely:
                TITLE I--FISCAL YEAR 1998 APPROPRIATIONS

                             FEDERAL FUNDS

     Federal Contribution to the Operations of the Nation's Capital

       For a Federal contribution to the District of Columbia 
     towards the costs of the operation of the government of the 
     District of Columbia, $180,000,000; as authorized by section 
     11601 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
     Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For the Office of the Inspector General, $2,000,000, to 
     prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in the programs 
     and operations of all functions, activities, and entities 
     within the government of the District of Columbia.

                     Metropolitan Police Department

       For the Metropolitan Police Department, $5,400,000, for a 5 
     percent pay increase for sworn officers who perform primarily 
     nonadministrative public safety services and are certified by 
     the Chief of Police as having met certain minimum standards 
     referred to in section 148 of this Act.

             Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department

       For the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, 
     $2,600,000, for a 5 percent pay increase for uniformed fire 
     fighters.

                 Federal Contribution to Public Schools

       For the public schools of the District of Columbia, 
     $1,000,000, which shall be paid to the District Education and 
     Learning Technologies Advancement (DELTA) Council established 
     by section 2604 of the District of Columbia School Reform Act 
     of 1995, Public Law 104-134, within 10 days of the effective 
     date of the appointment of a majority of the Council's 
     members.

    Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee 
                               Operations

       For payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee 
     for the administration and operation of correctional 
     facilities, $169,000,000, as authorized by the National 
     Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 
     1997, Public Law 105-33.

      Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee for 
            Correctional Facilities, Construction and Repair

       For payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee 
     for Correctional Facilities, $302,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which not less than $294,900,000 
     is available for transfer to the Federal Prison System, as 
     authorized by section 11202 of the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997; 
     and $7,100,000 shall be for security improvements and repairs 
     at the Lorton Correctional Complex.

                   Executive Office of the President


              Federal Payment to the District of Columbia

                        Criminal Justice System

                     (Including Transfer of Funds)

       Pursuant to the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
     Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33) 
     $146,000,000 for the Office of Management and Budget, of 
     which: (1) not to exceed $121,000,000 shall be transferred to 
     the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the 
     District of Columbia for operation of the District of 
     Columbia Courts; (2) not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the District of Columbia Truth in Sentencing 
     Commission to implement section 11211 of the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997; 
     (3) not to exceed $22,200,000 shall be transferred to the 
     Pretrial Services, Defense Services, Parole, Adult Probation, 
     and Offender Supervision Trustee for expenses relating to 
     pretrial services, defense services, parole, adult probation 
     and offender supervision in the District of Columbia, and for 
     operating expenses of the Trustee; and (4) not to exceed 
     $800,000 shall be transferred to the United States Parole 
     Commission to implement section 11231 of the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997.

                       United States Park Police

       For payment to the United States Park Police for policing 
     services performed within the District of Columbia, 
     $12,500,000.

                Federal Contribution to the District of

                       Columbia Scholarship Fund

       For the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund, $7,000,000, 
     as authorized by section 342 of this Act for scholarships to 
     students of low-income families in the District of Columbia 
     to enable them to have educational choice.

                          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.

               District of Columbia Taxpayers Relief Fund

       For the District of Columbia Taxpayers Relief Fund, an 
     amount equal to the difference between the amount of District 
     of Columbia local revenues provided under this Act and the 
     actual amount of District of Columbia local revenues 
     generated during fiscal year 1998 (as determined and 
     certified by the Chief Financial Officer of the District of 
     Columbia): Provided, That such amount shall be deposited into 
     an escrow account held by the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, which 
     shall allocate the funds to the Mayor, or such other District 
     official as the Authority may deem appropriate, in amounts 
     and in a manner consistent with the requirements of this Act: 
     Provided further, That these funds shall only be used to 
     offset reductions in District of Columbia local revenues as a 
     result of reductions in District of Columbia taxes or fees 
     enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia (based 
     upon the recommendations of the District of Columbia Tax 
     Revision Commission and the Business Regulatory Reform 
     Commission) and effective no later than October 1, 1998.

              District of Columbia Deficit Reduction Fund

       For the District of Columbia Deficit Reduction Fund, 
     $200,000,000, to be deposited into an escrow account held by 
     the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority, which shall allocate the 
     funds to the Mayor, or such other District official as the 
     Authority may deem appropriate, at such intervals and in 
     accordance with such terms and conditions as the Authority 
     considers appropriate: Provided, That an additional amount 
     shall be deposited into the Fund each month equal to the 
     amount saved by the District of Columbia during the previous 
     month as a result of cost-saving initiatives of the Mayor of 
     the District of Columbia (described in the fiscal year 1998 
     budget submission of June 1997), as determined and certified 
     by the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia: 
     Provided further, That the District government shall make 
     every effort to implement such cost-saving initiatives so 
     that the total amount saved by the District of Columbia 
     during all months of fiscal year 1998 as a result of such 
     initiatives is equal to or greater than $100,000,000: 
     Provided further, That the Chief Financial Officer shall 
     submit a report to Congress not later than January 1, 1998, 
     on a timetable for the implementation of such initiatives 
     under which all such initiatives shall be implemented by not 
     later than September 30, 1998: Provided further, That amounts 
     in the Fund shall only be used for reduction of the 
     accumulated general fund deficit existing as of September 30, 
     1997.

                   Governmental Direction and Support

       Governmental direction and support, $119,177,000 and 1,479 
     full-time equivalent positions (including $98,316,000, and 
     1,400 full-time equivalent positions from local funds, 
     $14,013,000 and 9 full-time equivalent positions from Federal 
     funds, and $6,848,000 and 70 full-time equivalent positions 
     from other funds): Provided, That not to exceed $2,500 for 
     the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of the Council of the 
     District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the City Administrator 
     shall be

[[Page H8762]]

     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 Columbia shall 
     identify the sources of funding for Admission to Statehood 
     from its own locally-generated revenues: Provided further, 
     That $240,000 shall be available for citywide special 
     elections: Provided further, That all employees permanently 
     assigned to work in the Office of the Mayor shall be paid 
     from funds allocated to the Office of the Mayor.

                  Economic Development and Regulation

       Economic development and regulation, $120,072,000 and 1,283 
     full-time equivalent positions (including $40,377,000 and 561 
     full-time equivalent positions from local funds, $42,065,000 
     and 526 full-time equivalent positions from Federal funds, 
     and $25,630,000 and 196 full-time equivalent positions from 
     other funds and $12,000,000 collected in the form of Business 
     Improvement Districts tax revenue collected by the District 
     of Columbia on behalf of business improvement districts 
     pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996, 
     effective May 29, 1996 (D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     2271 et seq.) and the Business Improvement Districts 
     Temporary Amendment Act of 1997 (Bill 12-230).

                       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, $502,970,000 and 9,719 full-time 
     equivalent positions (including $483,557,000 and 9,642 full-
     time equivalent positions from local funds, $13,519,000 and 
     73 full-time equivalent positions from Federal funds, and 
     $5,894,000 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 Department of Fire and Emergency Medical 
     Services of the District of Columbia is authorized to replace 
     not to exceed five passenger-carrying vehicles annually 
     whenever the cost of repair to any damaged vehicle exceeds 
     three-fourths of the cost of the replacement: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be available from 
     this appropriation for the Chief of Police for the prevention 
     and detection of crime: Provided further, That the 
     Metropolitan Police Department shall provide quarterly 
     reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
     Senate on efforts to increase efficiency and improve the 
     professionalism in the department: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order 
     86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Metropolitan Police 
     Department's delegated small purchase authority shall be 
     $500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     government may not require the Metropolitan Police Department 
     to submit to any other procurement review process, or to 
     obtain the approval of or be restricted in any manner by any 
     official or employee of the District of Columbia government, 
     for purchases that do not exceed $500,000: Provided further, 
     That the District of Columbia Fire 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 District of 
     Columbia Fire Department's delegated small purchase authority 
     shall be $500,000: Provided further, That the District of 
     Columbia government may not require the District of Columbia 
     Fire Department to submit to any other procurement review or 
     contract approval process, or to obtain the approval of or be 
     restricted in any manner by any official or employee of the 
     District of Columbia government, for purchases that do not 
     exceed $500,000: Provided further, That the 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: Provided 
     further, That the Metropolitan Police Department is 
     authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn officers, with leave for a 
     50 officer attrition: Provided further, That no more than 15 
     members of the Metropolitan Police Department shall be 
     detailed or assigned to the Executive Protection Unit, until 
     the Chief of Police submits a recommendation to the Council 
     for its review: Provided further, That $100,000 shall be 
     available for inmates released on medical and geriatric 
     parole: Provided further, That not less than $2,254,754 
     shall be available to support a pay raise for uniformed 
     firefighters, when authorized by the District of Columbia 
     Council and the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, which 
     funding will be made available as savings are achieved 
     through actions within the appropriated budget: 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, 1998, 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, 1998, 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, 1998, 
     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.

                        Public Education System

       Public education system, including the development of 
     national defense education programs, $673,444,000 and 11,314 
     full-time equivalent positions (including $531,197,000 and 
     9,595 full-time equivalent positions from local funds, 
     $112,806,000 and 1,424 full-time equivalent positions from 
     Federal funds, and $29,441,000 and 295 full-time equivalent 
     positions from other funds), to be allocated as follows: 
     $560,114,000 and 9,979 full-time equivalent positions 
     (including $456,128,000 and 8,623 full-time equivalent 
     positions from local funds, $98,491,000 and 1,251 full-time 
     equivalent positions from Federal funds, and $5,495,000 and 
     105 full-time equivalent positions from other funds), for the 
     public schools of the District of Columbia; $5,250,000 
     (including $300,000 for the Public Charter School Board) 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 15, 1998, 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); $8,900,000 from local funds for 
     the District of Columbia Teachers' Retirement Fund; 
     $1,000,000 from local funds for the District Education and 
     Learning Technologies Advancement (DELTA) Council to be paid 
     to the Council within 10 days of the effective date of the 
     appointment of a majority of the Council's members; 
     $70,687,000 and 872 full-time equivalent positions (including 
     $37,126,000 and 562 full-time equivalent positions from local 
     funds, $12,804,000 and 156 full-time equivalent positions 
     from Federal funds, and $20,757,000 and 154 full-time 
     equivalent positions from other funds) for the University of 
     the District of Columbia (excluding the U.D.C. School of 
     Law); $3,400,000 and 45 full-time equivalent positions 
     (including $665,000 and 10 full-time equivalent positions 
     from local funds and $2,735,000 and 35 full-time equivalent 
     positions from other funds) for the U.D.C. School of Law; 
     $22,036,000 and 409 full-time equivalent positions (including 
     $20,424,000 and 398 full-time equivalent positions from local 
     funds, $1,158,000 and 10 full-time equivalent positions from 
     Federal funds, and $454,000 and 1 full-time equivalent 
     position from other funds) for the Public Library; $2,057,000 
     and 9 full-time equivalent positions (including $1,704,000 
     and 2 full-time equivalent positions from local funds and 
     $353,000 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 $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, 1998, 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: 
     Provided further, That not less than

[[Page H8763]]

     $584,000 shall be available to support high school dropout 
     prevention programs: Provided further, That not less than 
     $295,000 shall be available for youth leadership and conflict 
     resolution programs: Provided further, That not less than 
     $10,000,000 shall be available to support a pay raise for 
     principals and assistant principals and for teachers of the 
     schools of the District of Columbia Public Schools with valid 
     teaching credentials who are primarily engaged in classroom 
     instruction during the SY 1997-1998: Provided further, That 
     not less than $250,000 shall be available to support Truancy 
     Prevention Programs: Provided further, That by the end of 
     fiscal year 1998, the District of Columbia Schools shall 
     designate at least 2 or more District of Columbia Public 
     School buildings as ``Community Hubs'' which, in addition to 
     serving as educational facilities, shall serve as multi-
     purpose centers that provide opportunities to integrate 
     support services and enable inter-generational users to meet 
     the lifelong learning needs of community residents, and may 
     support the following activities: before and after school 
     care; counseling; tutoring; vocational and career training; 
     art and sports programs; housing assistance; family literacy; 
     health and nutrition programs; parent education; employment 
     assistance; adult education; and access to state-of-the art 
     technology.

                         Human Support Services

       Human support services, $1,718,939,000 and 6,096 full-time 
     equivalent positions (including $789,350,000 and 3,583 full-
     time equivalent positions from local funds, $886,702,000 and 
     2,444 full-time equivalent positions from Federal funds, and 
     $42,887,000 and 69 full-time equivalent positions from other 
     funds): Provided, That $21,089,000 of this appropriation, to 
     remain available until expended, shall be available solely 
     for District of Columbia employees' disability compensation: 
     Provided further, That a Peer Review Committee shall be 
     established to review medical payments and the type of 
     service received by a disability compensation claimant: 
     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 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 leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles $241,934,000 and 
     1,292 full-time equivalent positions (including $227,983,000 
     and 1,162 full-time equivalent positions from local funds, 
     $3,350,000 and 51 full-time equivalent positions from Federal 
     funds, and $10,601,000 and 79 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: Provided further, That 
     $3,000,000 shall be available for the lease financing, 
     operation, and maintenance of two mechanical street 
     sweepings, one flusher truck, 5 packer trucks, one front-end 
     loader, and various public litter containers: Provided 
     further, That $2,400,000 shall be available for recycling 
     activities.

           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 Home Rule 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, $366,976,000 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, 
     $39,020,000 from local funds, as authorized by section 461(a) 
     of the District of Columbia Home Rule 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, 
     $12,000,000 from local funds.

                     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, $7,923,000.

                      Human Resources Development

       For Human resources development, including costs of 
     increased employee training, administrative reforms, and an 
     executive compensation system, $6,000,000.

                Management Reform and Productivity Fund

       For the Management Reform and Productivity Fund, 
     $5,000,000, to improve management and service delivery in the 
     District of Columbia.

   Critical Improvements and Repairs to School Facilities and Streets

       For expenditures for immediate, one-time critical 
     improvements and repairs to school facilities (including 
     roof, boiler, and chiller renovation or replacement) and for 
     neighborhood and other street repairs, to be completed not 
     later than August 1, 1998, $30,000,000, to be derived from 
     current local general fund operating revenues, to be expended 
     on a pay-as-you-go basis.

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), $3,220,000.

         Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct

       For the Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington 
     Aqueduct, $297,310,000 from other funds (including 
     $263,425,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority and 
     $33,885,000 for the Washington Aqueduct) of which $41,423,000 
     shall be apportioned and payable to the District's 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.), $213,500,000 and 100 full-time 
     equivalent positions (including $7,850,000 and 100 full-time 
     equivalent positions for administrative expenses and 
     $205,650,000 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.), $2,467,000 and 8 full-time equivalent positions 
     (including $2,135,000 and 8 full-time equivalent positions 
     from local funds and $332,000 from other funds).

                       Public Service Commission

       For the Public Service Commission, $4,547,000 (including 
     $4,250,000 from local funds, $117,000 from Federal funds, and 
     $180,000 for other funds).

                     Office of the People's Counsel

       For the Office of the People's Counsel, $2,428,000 from 
     local funds.

           Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation

       For the Department of Insurance and Securities Regulation, 
     $5,683,000 and 89 full-time equivalent positions from other 
     funds.

              Office of Banking and Financial Institutions

       For the Office of Banking and Financial Institutions, 
     $600,000 (including $100,000 from local funds and $500,000 
     from other funds).

                             Starplex Fund

       For the Starplex Fund, $5,936,000 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 Home 
     Rule 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

[[Page H8764]]

     No. 57 of the Board of Commissioners, effective August 15, 
     1953, $103,934,000 of which $44,335,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the general fund and $59,599,000 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 1979, 
     approved November 17, 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     711), $4,898,000 and 8 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 itemized accounting of the planned 
     use of appropriated funds in time for each annual budget 
     submission and the actual use of such funds in time for each 
     annual audited financial report.

                      Correctional Industries Fund

       For the Correctional Industries Fund, established by the 
     District of Columbia Correctional Industries Establishment 
     Act, approved October 3, 1964 (78 Stat. 1000; Public Law 88-
     622), $3,332,000 and 50 full-time equivalent positions from 
     other funds.

              Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund

       For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund, 
     $46,400,000 of which $5,400,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from the general fund.

                             Capital Outlay

       For construction projects, $269,330,000 (including 
     $105,485,000 from local funds, $31,100,000 from the highway 
     trust fund, and $132,745,000 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, 1999, except authorizations for projects as to 
     which funds have been obligated in whole or in part prior to 
     September 30, 1999: Provided further, That upon expiration of 
     any such project authorization the funds provided herein for 
     the project shall lapse: Provided further, That the District 
     has approved projects to finance capital related items, such 
     as vehicles and heavy equipment, through a master lease 
     purchase program. The District will finance $13,052,000 of 
     its equipment needs up to a 5 year-period. The fiscal year 
     1998 operating budget includes a total of $3,741,000 for the 
     debt associated with the lease purchase.

                           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 provision 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, 1998 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

[[Page H8765]]

     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 Home Rule 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 1997 shall be 
     deemed to be the rate of pay payable for that position for 
     September 30, 1997.
       (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 Home Rule 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 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, 1998, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council 
     of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 1998 revenue 
     estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 
     1998. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999. 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 Emergency 
     Transitional Education Board of Trustees 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 Home Rule 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 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 1998 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)).


             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.


                  prohibition on domestic partners act

       Sec. 130. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits 
     Expansion Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Code, sec. 36-
     1401 et seq.) or to otherwise implement or enforce any system 
     of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether 
     homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not 
     limited to registration for the purpose of extending 
     employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples 
     on the same basis as such benefits are extended to legally 
     married couples.


             monthly reporting requirements--public schools

       Sec. 131. The Emergency Transitional Education Board of 
     Trustees shall submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, 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 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;
       (3) 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;
       (4) all reprogramming requests and reports that are 
     required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of 
     Education; and
       (5) 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. 132. The University of the District of Columbia shall 
     submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     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 versus 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 list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen,

[[Page H8766]]

     broken out by control center, responsibility center, detailed 
     object, and for all funding sources;
       (3) 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;
       (4) 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
       (5) 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. 133. (a) In General.--The Emergency Transitional 
     Education Board of Trustees 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. 134. (a) No later than October 1, 1997, or within 15 
     calendar days after the date of the enactment of the District 
     of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1998, whichever occurs later, 
     and each succeeding year, the Emergency Transitional 
     Education Board of Trustees 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 Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees 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 
     Home Rule Act, Public Law 93-198, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 
     47-301).


                      Educational Budget Approval

       Sec. 135. The Emergency Transitional Education Board of 
     Trustees, 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 Home Rule 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. 136. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
     or regulation, the evaluation process and instruments for 
     evaluating District of Columbia Public Schools employees 
     shall be a non-negotiable item for collective bargaining 
     purposes.
       Sec. 137. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     rule, or regulation, an employee of the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools shall be--
       (1) classified as an Educational Service employee;
       (2) placed under the personnel authority of the Board of 
     Education; and
       (3) subject to all Board of Education rules.
       (b) School-based personnel shall constitute a separate 
     competitive area from nonschool-based personnel who shall not 
     compete with school-based personnel for retention purposes.


  miscellaneous provisions relating to district of columbia employees

       Sec. 138. (a) Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles.--
     (1) None of the funds made available by this Act or by any 
     other Act may be used to provide any officer or employee of 
     the District of Columbia with an official vehicle unless the 
     officer or employee uses the vehicle only in the performance 
     of the officer's or employee's official duties. For purposes 
     of this paragraph, the term ``official duties'' does not 
     include travel between the officer's or employee's residence 
     and workplace (except in the case of a police officer who 
     resides in the District of Columbia).
       (2) The Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     shall submit, by December 15, 1997, an inventory, as of 
     September 30, 1997, of all vehicles owned, leased or operated 
     by the District of Columbia government. The inventory shall 
     include, but not be limited to, the department to which the 
     vehicle is assigned; the year and make of the vehicle; the 
     acquisition date and cost; the general condition of the 
     vehicle; annual operating and maintenance costs; current 
     mileage; and whether the vehicle is allowed to be taken home 
     by a District officer or employee and if so, the officer or 
     employee's title and resident location.
       (b) Source of Payment for Employees Detailed Within 
     Government.--For purposes of determining the amount of funds 
     expended by any entity within the District of Columbia 
     government during fiscal year 1998 and each succeeding fiscal 
     year, any expenditures of the District government 
     attributable to any officer or employee of the District 
     government who provides services which are within the 
     authority and jurisdiction of the entity (including any 
     portion of the compensation paid to the officer or employee 
     attributable to the time spent in providing such services) 
     shall be treated as expenditures made from the entity's 
     budget, without regard to whether the officer or employee is 
     assigned to the entity or otherwise treated as an officer or 
     employee of the entity.
       (c) Modification of Reduction in Force Procedures.--The 
     District of Columbia Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel 
     Act of 1978 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-601.1 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 140(b) of the District of Columbia Appropriations 
     Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-194), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 2408. ABOLISHMENT OF POSITIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998.

       ``(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, 1998, each 
     agency head is authorized, within the agency head's 
     discretion, to identify positions for abolishment.
       ``(b) Prior to February 1, 1998, each personnel authority 
     (other than a personnel authority of an agency which is 
     subject to a management reform plan under subtitle B of title 
     XI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) 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 that--
       ``(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 (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) were not properly applied.
       ``(h) An employee separated pursuant to this section shall 
     be entitled to severance

[[Page H8767]]

     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) With respect to agencies which are not subject to a 
     management reform plan under subtitle B of title XI of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Mayor shall submit to the 
     Council a listing of all positions to be abolished by agency 
     and responsibility center by March 1, 1998 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, 
     1998, on any incumbent employee remaining in any position 
     identified to be abolished pursuant to subsection (b) of this 
     section.
       ``(m) In the case of an agency which is subject to a 
     management reform plan under subtitle B of title XI of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the authority provided by this 
     section shall be exercised to carry out the agency's 
     management reform plan, and this section shall otherwise be 
     implemented solely in a manner consistent with such plan.''.
       (d) Restricting Providers From Whom Employees May Receive 
     Disability Compensation Services.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2303(a) of the District of 
     Columbia Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 1-624.3(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (3) 
     and all that follows and inserting the following:
       ``(3) By or on the order of the District of Columbia 
     government medical officers and hospitals, or by or on the 
     order of a physician or managed care organization designated 
     or approved by the Mayor.''.
       (2) Services furnished.--Section 2303 of such Act (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 1-624.3) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) An employee to whom services, appliances, or 
     supplies are furnished pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     provided with such services, appliances, and supplies 
     (including reasonable transportation incident thereto) by a 
     managed care organization or other health care provider 
     designated by the Mayor, in accordance with such rules, 
     regulations, and instructions as the Mayor considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Any expenses incurred as a result of furnishing 
     services, appliances, or supplies which are authorized by the 
     Mayor under paragraph (1) shall be paid from the Employees' 
     Compensation Fund.
       ``(3) Any medical service provided pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be subject to utilization review under 
     section 2323.''.
       (3) Repeal penalty for delayed payment of compensation.--
     Section 2324 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-624.24) is 
     amended by striking subsection (c).
       (4) Definitions.--Section 2301 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 
     1-624.1) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence of subsection (c), by inserting 
     ``and as designated by the Mayor to provide services to 
     injured employees'' after ``State law''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(r)(1) The term `managed care organization' means an 
     organization of physicians and allied health professionals 
     organized to and capable of providing systematic and 
     comprehensive medical care and treatment of injured employees 
     which is designated by the Mayor to provide such care and 
     treatment under this title.
       ``(2) The term `allied health professional' means a medical 
     care provider (including a nurse, physical therapist, 
     laboratory technician, X-ray technician, social worker, or 
     other provider who provides such care within the scope of 
     practice under applicable law) who is employed by or 
     affiliated with a managed care organization.''.
       (5) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to services, supplies, or appliances 
     furnished under title XXIII of the District of Columbia Merit 
     Personnel Act of 1978 on or after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (e) Application of Binding Arbitration Procedures Under New 
     Personnel Rules.--
       (1) In general.--Section 11105(b)(3) of the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1997 is amended in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A) by striking ``pursuant'' and inserting ``in accordance 
     with binding arbitration procedures in effect under a 
     collective bargaining agreement, or pursuant''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.


               Ceiling on Operating Expenses and Deficit

       Sec. 139. (a) Ceiling on Total Operating Expenses.--
       (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 1998 
     under the caption ``Division of Expenses'' may not exceed the 
     lesser of--
       (A) the sum of the total revenues of the District of 
     Columbia for such fiscal year less $192,741,000; or
       (B) $4,493,375,000 (excluding intra-District funds of 
     $118,269,000) of which $2,655,232,000 is from local funds; 
     $1,072,572,000 is from Federal grants; and $765,571,000 in 
     private and other funds.
       (2) Enforcement.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (hereafter 
     in this section referred to as the ``Authority'') shall take 
     such steps as are necessary to assure that the District of 
     Columbia meets the requirements of this section, including 
     the apportioning or reprogramming by the Chief Financial 
     Officer of the appropriations and funds made available to the 
     District during fiscal year 1998, except that the Chief 
     Financial Officer may not reprogram for operating expenses 
     any funds derived from bonds, notes, or other obligations 
     issued for capital projects.
       (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 
     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 Authority a report setting forth detailed information 
     regarding such grant; and
       (B) the 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 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 of Columbia 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.
       (c) Prohibiting Use of Non-Appropriated Funds by Certain 
     Entities.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority and the District of Columbia 
     Water and Sewer Authority may not obligate or expend any 
     funds during fiscal year 1998 or any succeeding fiscal year 
     without approval by Act of Congress.
       (2) Report on expenditures by financial responsibility and 
     management assistance authority.--Not later than November 15, 
     1997, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority shall submit a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight of the House, and the Committee on Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate providing an itemized accounting of all 
     non-appropriated funds obligated or expended by the Authority 
     at any time prior to October 1, 1997. The report shall 
     include information on the date, amount, purpose, and vendor 
     name, and a description of the services or goods provided 
     with respect to the expenditures of such funds.
       (3) Effect of expenditure of non-appropriated funds.--Any 
     obligation of funds by any officer or employee of the 
     District of Columbia government (including any member, 
     officer or employee of the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority) in 
     violation of the fourth sentence of section 446 of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act shall have no legal 
     effect, and the officer or employee involved shall be removed 
     from office and personally liable for any amounts owed as a 
     result of such obligation.


              powers and duties of chief financial officer

       Sec. 140. (a) Clarification of Authority Over Financial 
     Personnel.--
       (1) In general.--Section 424(a) of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act (D.C. Code, sec. 47-317.1) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, who shall be 
     appointed'' and all that follows through ``direction and 
     control''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Authority over financial personnel.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law or regulation (including any law or regulation providing 
     for collective bargaining or the enforcement of any

[[Page H8768]]

     collective bargaining agreement), the heads and all personnel 
     of the offices described in subparagraph (B), together with 
     all other District of Columbia accounting, budget, and 
     financial management personnel (including personnel of 
     independent agencies but not including personnel of the 
     legislative or judicial branches of the District government) 
     shall be appointed by, shall serve at the pleasure of, and 
     shall act under the direction and control of the Chief 
     Financial Officer, and shall be considered at-will employees 
     not covered by the District of Columbia Government 
     Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978.
       ``(B) Offices described.--The offices referred to in this 
     subparagraph are as follows:
       ``(i) The Office of the Treasurer (or any successor 
     office).
       ``(ii) The Controller of the District of Columbia (or any 
     successor office).
       ``(iii) The Office of the Budget (or any successor office).
       ``(iv) The Office of Financial Information Services (or any 
     successor office).
       ``(v) The Department of Finance and Revenue (or any 
     successor office).
       ``(vi) During a control year, the District of Columbia 
     Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board (or any successor 
     office).
       ``(C) Removal of personnel by authority.--In addition to 
     the power of the Chief Financial Officer to remove any of the 
     personnel covered under this paragraph, the Authority may 
     remove any such personnel for cause, after written 
     consultation with the Mayor and the Chief Financial 
     Officer.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--(A) Section 152(a) of the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 
     104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-102) is hereby repealed.
       (B) Section 142(a) of the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-194; 110 Stat. 2375) 
     is hereby repealed.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1996, except that 
     the amendment made by paragraph (2)(B) shall take effect as 
     if included in the enactment of the District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1997.
       (b) Personnel Authority Under Management Reform Plans.--
       (1) In general.--Section 11105(b) of the Balanced Budget 
     Act of 1997 is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Exception for personnel under direction and control 
     of chief financial officer.--This subsection shall not apply 
     with respect to any personnel who are appointed by, serve at 
     the pleasure of, and act under the direction and control of 
     the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia 
     pursuant to section 424(a)(4) of the District of Columbia 
     Home Rule Act.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section 
     11105(b) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
       (c) Monthly Reports on Revenues and Expenditures; Inclusion 
     of Information on All Entities of District Government.--
     Section 424(d) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 47-317.4) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraphs:
       ``(8) Preparing monthly reports containing the following 
     information (and submitting such reports to Congress, the 
     Council, the Mayor, and the Authority not later than the 21st 
     day of the month following the month covered by the report):
       ``(A) The cash flow of the District government, including a 
     statement of funds received and disbursed for all standard 
     categories of revenues and expenses.
       ``(B) The revenues and expenditures of the District 
     government, including a comparison of the amounts projected 
     for such revenues and expenditures in the annual budget for 
     the fiscal year involved with actual revenues and 
     expenditures during the month.
       ``(C) The obligations of funds made by or on behalf of the 
     District government, together with a statement of accounts 
     payable and the disbursements paid towards such accounts 
     during the month and during the fiscal year involved.
       ``(9) Ensuring that any regular report on the status of the 
     funds of the District government prepared by the Chief 
     Financial Officer includes information on the funds of all 
     entities within the District government (including funds in 
     any accounts of the Authority and interest earned on such 
     accounts).''.
       (d) Clarification of Grounds for Removal From Office.--
     Section 424(b)(2) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 47-317.2(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Consultation with congress.--The Authority or the 
     Mayor (whichever is applicable) may not remove the Chief 
     Financial Officer under this paragraph unless the Authority 
     or the Mayor (as the case may be) has consulted with Congress 
     prior to the removal. Such consultation shall include at a 
     minimum the submission of a written statement to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, explaining the factual 
     circumstances involved.''.


             police and fire fighter disability retirements

       Sec. 141. (a) Determinations of Disability Status.--
     Notwithstanding any other provisions of the District of 
     Columbia Retirement Reform Act or any other law, rule, or 
     regulation, for purposes of any retirement program of the 
     District of Columbia for teachers, members of the 
     Metropolitan Police Department, or members of the Fire 
     Department, no individual may have disability status unless 
     the determination of the individual's disability status is 
     made by a single entity designated by the District to make 
     such determinations (or, if the determination is made by any 
     other person, if such entity approves the determination).
       (b) Analysis by Enrolled Actuary of Impact of Disability 
     Retirements.--Not later than January 1, 1998, and every 6 
     months thereafter, the Mayor of the District of Columbia 
     shall engage an enrolled actuary (to be paid by the District 
     of Columbia Retirement Board) to provide an analysis of the 
     actuarial impact of disability retirements occurring during 
     the previous 6-month period on the police and fire fighter 
     retirement programs of the District of Columbia.
       Sec. 142. (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.


     budgets of departments or agencies subject to court-appointed 
                             administrator

       Sec. 143. If a department or agency of the government of 
     the District of Columbia is under the administration of a 
     court-appointed receiver or other court-appointed official 
     during fiscal year 1998 or any succeeding fiscal year, the 
     receiver or official shall prepare and submit to the Mayor, 
     for inclusion in the annual budget of the District of 
     Columbia for the year, annual estimates of the expenditures 
     and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and 
     operation of the department or agency. All such estimates 
     shall be forwarded by the Mayor to the Council, for its 
     action pursuant to sections 446 and 603(c) of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act, without revision but subject to the 
     Mayor's recommendations. Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the Council may comment 
     or make recommendations concerning such annual estimates but 
     shall have no authority under such Act to revise such 
     estimates.


                       ``special masters' budgets

       ``Sec. 445B. All Special Masters appointed by the District 
     of Columbia Superior Court or the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia to any agency of the 
     District of Columbia government shall prepare and annually 
     submit to the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority, for inclusion in the 
     annual budget, annual estimates of expenditures and 
     appropriations. Such annual estimates shall be approved by 
     the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and 
     Management Assistance Authority and the Council of the 
     District of Columbia pursuant to section 202 of the District 
     of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Act of 1995.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     1 of part D of title IV of the District of Columbia Home Rule 
     Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 445A the following new item:

``Sec. 445B. Special masters' budgets.''.


                commencing of adverse actions for police

       Sec. 144. Section 1601(b-1) 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-
     617.1(b-1)), is amended as follows:
       (a) Paragraph (1) is amended by striking the phrase 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (2)'' and inserting the 
     phrase ``Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3)'' in 
     its place.
       (b) A new paragraph (3) is added to read as follows:

[[Page H8769]]

       ``(3) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this 
     subsection, for members of the Metropolitan Police 
     Department, no corrective or adverse action shall be 
     commenced pursuant to this section more than 120 days, not 
     including Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays, after the 
     date that the agency knew or should have known of the act or 
     occurrence allegedly constituting cause, as that term is 
     defined in subsection (d) of this section.''.


        notice to police officers for out-of-service assignments

       Sec. 145. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     collective bargaining agreement, the Metropolitan Police 
     Department shall change the advance notice that is required 
     to be given to officers for out-of-schedule assignments from 
     28 days to 14 days.
       (b) No officer shall be entitled to overtime for out-of-
     regular schedule assignments if the Metropolitan Police 
     Department provides the officer with notice of the change in 
     assignment at least 14 days in advance.
       Sec. 146. Except as provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``District of Columbia Taxpayers Relief Fund'', any unused 
     surplus as of the end of the fiscal year shall be used to 
     reduce the District's outstanding accumulated deficit.


                          retirement programs

       Sec. 147. (a) Cap on Stipends of Retirement Board 
     Members.--Section 121(c)(1) of the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Reform Act (D.C. Code, sec. 1-711(c)(1)) is 
     amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, and the total amount to which a member may be 
     entitled under this subsection during a year (beginning with 
     1998) may not exceed $5,000.''.
       (b) Resumption of Certain Terminated Annuities Paid to 
     Child Survivors of District of Columbia Police and 
     Firefighters.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (k)(5) of the Policemen and 
     Firemen's Retirement and Disability Act (D.C. Code, sec. 4-
     622(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) If the annuity of a child under subparagraph (A) or 
     subparagraph (B) terminates because of marriage and such 
     marriage ends, the annuity shall resume on the first day of 
     the month in which it ends, but only if the individual is not 
     otherwise ineligible for the annuity.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to any termination of marriage 
     taking effect on or after November 1, 1993, except that 
     benefits shall be payable only with respect to amounts 
     accruing for periods beginning on the first day of the month 
     beginning after the later of such termination of marriage or 
     such date of enactment.


                premium pay for certain police officers

       Sec. 148. Effective for the first full pay period following 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the salary of any 
     sworn officer of the Metropolitan Police Department shall be 
     increased by 5 percent if--
       (1) the officer performs primarily nonadministrative public 
     safety services; and
       (2) the officer is certified by the Chief of the Department 
     as having met the minimum ``Basic Certificate'' standards 
     transmitted by the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority to 
     Congress by letter dated May 19, 1997, or (if applicable) the 
     minimum standards under any physical fitness and performance 
     standards developed by the Department in consultation with 
     the Authority.


                prohibiting increase in welfare payments

       Sec. 149. (a) In General.--The Council of the District of 
     Columbia shall have no authority to enact any act, 
     resolution, or rule during a fiscal year which increases the 
     amount of payment which may be for any individual under the 
     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program to an amount 
     greater than the amount provided under such program under the 
     District of Columbia Public Assistance Act of 1982, as in 
     effect on the day after the effective date of the Public 
     Assistance Temporary Amendment Act of 1997.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection shall apply with respect to 
     fiscal year 1998 and each succeeding fiscal year.
       Sec. 150. Effective as if included in the enactment of the 
     Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 
     1996, section 517 of such Act (110 Stat. 1321-248) is amended 
     by striking ``October 1, 1991'' and inserting ``the date of 
     the enactment of this Act''.


                   liens of water and sewer authority

       Sec. 151. (a) Requiring Imposition of Lien For Unpaid 
     Bills.--The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority 
     shall take action to impose a lien against each commercial 
     property with respect to which any payment owed to the 
     Authority is past due in an aggregate amount equal to or 
     greater than $3,000, but only if the payment is past due for 
     120 or more consecutive days.
       (b) Disposition of Liens Through Private Sources.--
     Beginning January 31, 1998, the District of Columbia Water 
     and Sewer Authority shall dispose of all pending liens 
     imposed for the collection of amounts owned to the Authority 
     by assigning the right to collect under such liens to a 
     private entity in exchange for a cash payment, or by issuing 
     securities secured by such liens.


               deemed approval of contracts by authority

       Sec. 152. Section 203(b) of the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 
     1995 (D.C. Code, sec. 47-392.3(b)), as amended by section 
     5203(d) of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 
     (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-1456), is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Deemed approval.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Authority does not notify the 
     Mayor (or the appropriate officer or agent of the District 
     government) that it has determined that a contract or lease 
     submitted under this subsection is consistent with the 
     financial plan and budget or is not consistent with the 
     financial plan and budget during the 30-day period (or, if 
     the Authority meets the requirements of subparagraph (B), 
     such alternative period as the Authority may elect, not to 
     exceed 60 days) which begins on the first day after the 
     Authority receives the contract or lease, the Authority shall 
     be deemed to have determined that the contract or lease is 
     consistent with the financial plan and budget.
       ``(B) Election of longer period by authority.--The 
     Authority meets the requirements of this subparagraph if, 
     prior to the expiration of the 30-day period described in 
     subparagraph (A), the Authority provides a notice to the 
     Mayor (or the appropriate officer or agent of the District 
     government) and Congress which describes the period elected 
     by the Authority, together with an explanation of the 
     Authority's decision to elect an alternative period.''.


                      financial management system

       Sec. 153. (a) In General.--The Chief Financial Officer of 
     the District of Columbia shall enter into a contract with a 
     private entity under which the entity shall carry out the 
     following activities (by contract or otherwise) on behalf of 
     the District of Columbia:
       (1) In accordance with the requirements of subsection (b), 
     the establishment and operation of an update of the present 
     financial management system for the government of the 
     District of Columbia by not later than June 30, 1998, to 
     provide for the complete, accurate, and timely input and 
     processing of financial data and the generation of reliable 
     output reports for financial management purposes.
       (2) To execute a process in accordance with ``best 
     practice'' procedures of the information technology industry 
     to determine the need, if any, of further improving the 
     updated financial management system in subsection (a).
       (b) Specifications for Short-Term Financial Management 
     System Improvements.--For purposes of subsection (a)(1), the 
     requirements of this subsection are as follows:
       (1) A qualified vendor, in accordance with Office of 
     Management and Budget standards, shall update the District of 
     Columbia government's financial management system in use as 
     of October 1, 1996.
       (2) An information technology vendor shall operate the 
     financial data center environment of the District government 
     to ensure that its equipment and operations are compatible 
     with the updated financial management system.
       (3) A financial consulting vendor shall carry out an 
     assessment of the District government employees who work with 
     the financial management system, provide training in the 
     operation of the updated system for those who are capable of 
     effectively using the system, and provide recommendations to 
     the Chief Financial Officer regarding those who are not 
     capable of effectively using the system, including 
     recommendations for reassignment or for separation from 
     District government employment.
       (c) Certification of Policies and Procedures for 
     Acquisition of Long-Term Financial Management System 
     Improvements.--
       (1) In general.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia shall enter into a contract with a 
     private entity under which the entity shall conduct an 
     independent assessment to certify whether the District 
     government (including the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority) has 
     established and implemented policies and procedures that will 
     result in a disciplined approach to the acquisition of a 
     financial management system for the District government, 
     including policies and procedures with respect to such items 
     as--
       (A) software acquisition planning,
       (B) solicitation,
       (C) requirements, development, and management,
       (D) project office management,
       (E) contract tracking and oversight,
       (F) evaluation of products and services provided by the 
     contractor, and
       (G) the method that will be used to carry out a successful 
     transition to the delivered system by its users.
       (2) Model for assessment.--The independent assessment shall 
     be performed based on the Software Acquisition Capability 
     Maturity Model developed by the Software Engineering 
     Institute or a comparable methodology.
       (3) Review of assessment.--A copy of the independent 
     assessment shall be provided to the Comptroller General, the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the 
     Inspector General of the District of Columbia, who shall 
     review and prepare a report on the assessment.

[[Page H8770]]

       (d) Restrictions on Spending for Other Financial Management 
     System Procurement and Development.--
       (1) In general.--None of the funds made available under 
     this or any other Act may be used to improve or replace the 
     financial management system of the government of the District 
     of Columbia (including the procuring of hardware and 
     installation of new software, conversion, testing, and 
     training) until the expiration of the 30-day period which 
     begins on the date the Comptroller General, Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, and Inspector General of the 
     District of Columbia submit a report under subsection (c)(3) 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Governmental 
     Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, which 
     certifies that the District government has established and 
     implemented the policies and procedures described in 
     subsection (c)(1).
       (2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to funds 
     used to carry out subsection (a) or to carry out the contract 
     described in subsection (c).


                 powers and duties of inspector general

       Sec. 154. (a) Clarification of Authority to Conduct 
     Audits.--
       (1) Exclusive authority to contract for independent annual 
     audit.--None of the funds made available under this Act or 
     any other Act may be used to carry out any contract to 
     conduct the annual audit of the complete financial statement 
     and report of the activities of the District government for 
     fiscal year 1997 or any succeeding fiscal year unless the 
     contract is entered into by the Inspector General of the 
     District of Columbia.
       (2) Scope of audits.--Section 208(a) the District of 
     Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 (sec. 1-1182.8(a), 
     D.C. Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) The Inspector General may include in any audits 
     conducted pursuant to this subsection (by contract or 
     otherwise) of the activities of the District government such 
     audits of the activities of the Authority as the Inspector 
     General considers appropriate.''.
       (6) Clarification of Grounds for Removal From Office.--
     Section 208(a)(1) of such Act (sec. 1-1182.8(a)(1), D.C. 
     Code), as amended by subsection (b), is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(G) The Authority or the Mayor (whichever is applicable) 
     may not remove the Inspector General under this paragraph 
     unless the Authority or the Mayor (as the case may be) has 
     consulted with Congress prior to the removal. Such 
     consultation shall include at a minimum the submission of a 
     written statement to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate, explaining the factual circumstances involved.''.
       (c) Requiring Placement of Inspector General Hotline on 
     Permit and License Application Forms.--
       (1) In general.--Each District of Columbia permit or 
     license application form printed after the expiration of the 
     30-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act shall include the telephone number established by 
     the Inspector General of the District of Columbia for 
     reporting instances of waste, fraud, and abuse, together with 
     a brief description of the uses and purposes of such number.
       (2) Quarterly reports on use of number.--Not later than 10 
     days after the end of such calendar quarter of each fiscal 
     year (beginning with fiscal year 1998), the Inspector General 
     of the District of Columbia shall submit a report to Congress 
     on the number and nature of the calls received through the 
     telephone number described in paragraph (1) during the 
     quarter and on the waste, fraud, and abuse detected as a 
     result of such calls.


        requiring use of direct deposit or mail for all payments

       Sec. 155. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law (including any law or regulation providing 
     for collective bargaining or the enforcement of any 
     collective bargaining agreement) or collective bargaining 
     agreement, any payment made by the District of Columbia after 
     the expiration of the 45-day period which begins on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act to any person shall be made by--
       (1) direct deposit through electronic funds transfer to a 
     checking, savings, or other account designated by the person; 
     or
       (2) a check delivered through the United States Postal 
     Service to the person's place of residence or business.
       (b) Regulations.--The Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia is authorized to issue rules to carry 
     out this section.


               revision of certain auditing requirements

       Sec. 156. (a) Information Included in Independent Annual 
     Audit.--Effective with respect to fiscal year 1997 and each 
     succeeding fiscal year, the independent annual audit of the 
     government of the District of Columbia conducted for a fiscal 
     year pursuant to section 4(a) of Public Law 94-399 (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 47-119(a)) shall include the following information 
     in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report:
       (1) An audited budgetary statement comparing actual 
     revenues and expenditures during the fiscal year with the 
     amounts appropriated in the annual appropriations act for the 
     entire District government and for each fund of the District 
     government (and each appropriation account with each such 
     fund as a supplemental schedule) for the fiscal year, 
     together with the revenue projections on which the 
     appropriations are based, to determine the surplus or deficit 
     thereof.
       (2) An unaudited statement of monthly cash flows (on a 
     fund-by-fund basis) showing projected and actual receipts and 
     disbursements (with variances) by category.
       (3) A discussion and analysis of the financial condition 
     and results of operations of the District government prepared 
     by the independent auditor.
       (b) Audit of Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Section 106 of the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 
     1995 (D.C. Code, sec. 47-304.1), as amended by section 
     11711(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Annual Financial Audit.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year (beginning with 
     fiscal year 1997), the Authority shall enter into a contract, 
     using annual appropriations to the Authority, with an auditor 
     who is a certified public accountant licensed in the District 
     of Columbia to conduct an audit of the Authority's financial 
     statements for the fiscal year, in accordance with generally 
     accepted government auditing standards, and the financial 
     statements shall be prepared in accordance with generally 
     accepted accounting principles.
       ``(2) Contents.--The auditor shall include in the audit 
     conducted under this subsection the following information:
       ``(A) An audited budgetary statement comparing gross actual 
     revenues and expenditures of the Authority during the fiscal 
     year with amounts appropriated, together with the revenue 
     projections on which the appropriations are based, to 
     determine the surplus or deficit thereof.
       ``(B) An unaudited statement of monthly cash flows, showing 
     projected and actual receipts and disbursements by category 
     (with variances).
       ``(C) A discussion and analysis of the financial condition 
     and results of operations of the Authority prepared by the 
     independent auditor.
       ``(3) Submission.--The Authority shall submit the audit 
     reports and financial statements conducted under this 
     subsection to Congress, the President, the Comptroller 
     General, the Council, and the Mayor.''.
       (2) Responsibilities of authority.--The District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority shall--
       (A) with respect to the annual budget of the Authority for 
     fiscal year 1999 and each succeeding fiscal year, provide the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia (prior to the transmission 
     of the budget by the Mayor to the President and Congress 
     under section 446 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act) 
     with an item-by-item accounting of the planned uses of 
     appropriated and non-appropriated funds (including all 
     projected revenues) of the Authority under the budget for 
     such fiscal year; and
       (B) with respect to the annual budget of the Authority for 
     fiscal year 1997 and each succeeding fiscal year, provide the 
     person conducting the independent annual audit of the 
     government of the District of Columbia pursuant to section 
     4(a) of Public Law 94-399 (D.C. Code, sec. 47-119(a)) (prior 
     to the completion of the audit) with the actual uses of all 
     appropriated and non-appropriated funds of the Authority 
     under the budget for such fiscal year.
       (3) Inclusion in independent annual audit.--For purposes of 
     the independent annual audit of the government of the 
     District of Columbia conducted pursuant to section 4(a) of 
     Public Law 94-399 (D.C. Code, sec. 47-119(a)) for fiscal year 
     1997 and each succeeding fiscal year, the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority shall be considered to be an entity within the 
     government of the District of Columbia accountable for 
     appropriated funds in the District of Columbia annual budget, 
     and included as such in the District of Columbia government's 
     Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.


                    treatment of unclaimed property

       Sec. 157. (a) Definitions of Certain Terms.--Section 102 of 
     the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act of 1980 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 42-202) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) `Business association' means a corporation, joint 
     stock company, investment company, partnership, 
     unincorporated association, joint venture, limited liability, 
     business trust, trust company, financial organization, 
     insurance company, mutual fund, utility, or other business 
     entity consisting of one or more persons, whether or not for 
     profit.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(18) `Record' means information that is inscribed on a 
     tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other 
     medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
       ``(19) `Property' means a fixed and certain interest in or 
     right in property that is held, issued, or owed in the course 
     of a holder's business, or by a government or governmental 
     entity, and all income or increments therefrom, including an 
     interest referred to as or evidenced by any of the following:

[[Page H8771]]

       ``(A) Money, check, draft, deposit, interest, dividend, and 
     income.
       ``(B) Credit balance, customer overpayment, gift 
     certificate, security deposit, refund, credit memorandum, 
     unpaid wage, unused airline ticket, unused ticket, mineral 
     proceed, and unidentified remittance and electronic fund 
     transfer.
       ``(C) Stock or other evidence of ownership of an interest 
     in a business association.
       ``(D) Bond, debenture, note, or other evidence of 
     indebtedness.
       ``(E) Money deposited to redeem stocks, bonds, coupons, or 
     other securities or to make distributions.
       ``(F) An amount due and payable under the terms of an 
     insurance policy, including policies providing life 
     insurance, property and casualty insurance, workers 
     compensation insurance, or health and disability benefits 
     insurance.
       ``(G) An amount distributable from a trust or custodial 
     fund established under a plan to provide health, welfare, 
     pension, vacation, severance, retirement, death, stock 
     purchase, profit sharing, employee savings, supplemental 
     unemployment insurance, or similar benefits.''.
       (b) Shortening Period for Presumption of Abandonment.--
       (1) In general.--Section 103(a) of such Act (D.C. Code, 
     sec. 42-203(a)) is amended by striking ``5 years'' and 
     inserting ``3 years''.
       (2) Bank deposits and funds in financial organizations.--
     Section 106 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-206) is amended 
     by striking ``5 years'' each place it appears in subsections 
     (a) and (d) and inserting ``3 years''.
       (3) Funds held by life insurance companies.--Section 107 of 
     such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-207) is amended by striking ``5 
     years'' each place it appears in subsections (a) and 
     (c)(2)(C) and inserting ``3 years''.
       (4) Deposits and refunds held by utilities.--Section 108 of 
     such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-208) is amended by striking ``5 
     years'' each place it appears and inserting ``1 year''.
       (5) Stock and other intangible interests in business 
     associations.--Section 109 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-
     209) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``5 years'' each place it appears in 
     subsections (a) and (b)(1) and inserting ``3 years''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``5-year'' and 
     inserting ``3-year''.
       (6) Property held by fiduciaries.--Section 111(a) of such 
     Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-211(a)) is amended by striking ``5 
     years'' and inserting ``3 years''.
       (7) Property held by public officers and agencies.--Section 
     112 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-212) is amended by 
     striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``1 year''.
       (8) Employee benefit trust distributions.--Section 113 of 
     such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-213) is amended by striking ``5 
     years'' and inserting ``3 years''.
       (9) Contents of safe deposit box.--Section 115 of such Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 42-215) is amended by striking ``5 years'' 
     and inserting ``3 years''.
       (c) Criteria for Presumption of Abandonment.--
       (1) In general.--Section 103 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 
     42-203) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) A record of the issuance of a check, draft, or 
     similar instrument by a holder is prima facie evidence of 
     property held or owed to a person other than the holder. In 
     claiming property from a holder who is also the issuer, the 
     Mayor's burden of proof as to the existence and amount of the 
     property and its abandonment is satisfied by showing issuance 
     of the instrument and passage of the requisite period of 
     abandonment. Defenses of payment, satisfaction, discharge, 
     and want of consideration are affirmative defenses that may 
     be established by the holder.''.
       (2) Special rules regarding stock and other intangible 
     interests in business associations.--Section 109 of such Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 42-209) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsections:
       ``(d) For purposes of subsection (b), the return of 
     official shareholder notifications or communications by the 
     postal service as undeliverable shall be evidence that the 
     association does not know the location of the owner.
       ``(e) In the case of property consisting of stock or other 
     intangible ownership interest enrolled in a plan that 
     provides for the automatic reinvestment of dividends, 
     distribution, or other sums payable as a result of the 
     interest, the property may not be presumed to be abandoned 
     under this section unless either of the following applies:
       ``(1) The records available to the administrator of the 
     plan show, with respect to any intangible ownership interest 
     not enrolled in the reinvestment plan, that the owner has not 
     within 3 years communicated in any manner described in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) 3 years have elapsed since the location of the owner 
     became unknown to the association, as evidenced by the return 
     of official shareholder notifications or by the postal 
     service as undeliverable, and the owner has not within those 
     3 years communicated in any manner described in subsection 
     (a). The 3-year period from the return of official 
     shareholder notifications or communications shall commence 
     from the earlier of the return of the second such mailing or 
     the time the holder discontinues mailings to the 
     shareholder.''.
       (3) Special rule regarding property distributed through 
     litigation or settlement of dispute.--Section 110 of such Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 42-210) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``All intangible'' and inserting ``(a) All 
     intangible''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) All intangible property payable or distributable to a 
     member or participant in a class action suit, either one 
     allowed by the court to be maintained as such or one 
     essentially handled as a class action suit and remaining for 
     more than one year after the time for the final payment or 
     distribution is presumed abandoned, unless within the 
     preceding one year, there has been a communication between 
     the member or participant and the holder concerning the 
     property. Intangible property payable or distributable as the 
     result of litigation or settlement of a dispute before a 
     judicial or administrative body and remaining unclaimed for 
     more than one year after the time for the final distribution 
     is presumed abandoned.''.
       (d) Requirements for Persons Holding Property Presumed 
     Abandoned.--
       (1) Deadline for filing report with mayor.--Section 117(d) 
     of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-217(d)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d)(1) The report as of the prior June 30th must be filed 
     before November 1st of each year, but a report with respect 
     to a life insurance company must be filed before May 1st of 
     each year as of the prior December 31. The Mayor may postpone 
     the reporting date upon written request by any person 
     required to file a report.
       ``(2) In calendar year 1998, a report concerning all 
     property presumed to be abandoned as of October 31, 1997, 
     must be filed no later than January 2, 1998.''.
       (2) Notification of owner.--Section 117(e) of such Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 42-217(e)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Not earlier than 120 days prior to filing the report 
     required under this section (and not later than 60 days prior 
     to filing such report), the holder of property presumed 
     abandoned shall send written notice to the apparent owner of 
     the property stating that the holder is in possession of 
     property subject to this Act, but only if--
       ``(1) the holder has in its records an address for the 
     apparent owner, unless the holder's records indicate that 
     such address is not accurate; and
       ``(2) the value of the property is at least $50.''.
       (3) Payment or delivery of property to mayor.--Section 119 
     of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-219) is amended by striking 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) Upon the filing of the report required under section 
     117 with respect to property presumed abandoned, the holder 
     of the property shall pay or deliver (or cause to be paid or 
     delivered) to the Mayor the property described in the report 
     as abandoned, except that--
       ``(1) in the case of property consisting of an 
     automatically renewable deposit for which a penalty or 
     forfeiture in the payment of interest would result if payment 
     were made to the Mayor at such time, the holder may delay the 
     payment or delivery of the property to the Mayor until such 
     time as the penalty or forfeiture will not occur; and
       ``(2) in the case of tangible property held in a safe 
     deposit box or other safekeeping depository, the holder shall 
     pay or deliver (or cause to be paid or delivered) the 
     property to the Mayor upon the expiration of the 120-day 
     period which begins on the date the holder files the report 
     required under section 117.
       ``(b) If the Mayor postpones the reporting date with 
     respect to the property under section 117(d), the holder, 
     upon receipt of the extension, may make an interim payment 
     under this section on the amount the holder estimates will 
     ultimately be due.''.
       (4) Clarification of use of estimated payments and 
     reports.--Section 130(d) of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-
     230(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) If a holder fails to maintain the records required by 
     section 132 and the records of the holder available for the 
     periods for which this Act applies to the property involved 
     are insufficient to permit the preparation of a report and 
     delivery of the property, the holder shall be required to 
     report and pay such amounts as may reasonably be estimated 
     from any available records.''.
       (5) Retention of records.--Section 132(a) of such Act (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 42-232(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and unless the 
     Mayor provides otherwise by rule, every holder required to 
     file a report under section 117 shall retain all books, 
     records, and documents necessary to establish the accuracy of 
     such report and the compliance of the report with the 
     requirements of this Act for 10 years after the property 
     becomes reportable, together with a record of the name and 
     address of the owner of the property in the case of any 
     property for which the holder has obtained the last known 
     address of the owner.''.
       (e) Duties and Powers of Mayor.--
       (1) Information included in published notice of abandoned 
     property.--Section 118(b)(3) of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-
     218(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) A statement that property of the owner is presumed to 
     be abandoned and has been taken into the protective custody 
     of the Mayor, except in the case of property described in 
     section 119(a)(1) which is not paid or delivered to the Mayor 
     pursuant to such section.''.
       (2) Information included in mailed notice.--Section 
     118(e)(3) of such Act (D.C.

[[Page H8772]]

     Code, sec. 42-218(e)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) A statement explaining that property of the owner is 
     presumed to be abandoned, the property has been taken into 
     the protective custody of the Mayor (other than property 
     described in section 119(a)(1) which is not paid or delivered 
     to the Mayor pursuant to such section), and information about 
     the property and its return to the owner is available to a 
     person having a legal or beneficial interest in the property, 
     upon request to the Mayor.''.
       (3) Transition rule for 1997.--Section 118(g) of such Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 42-218(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) With respect to property reported and delivered on or 
     before January 2, 1998, pursuant to section 117(d)(2), the 
     Mayor shall cause the newspaper notice required by subsection 
     (a) and the notice mailed under subsection (d) to be 
     completed no later than May 1, 1998.''.
       (4) Imposition of one-year waiting period for sale of 
     property.--The first sentence of section 122(a) of such Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 42-222(a)) is amended by striking ``may be 
     sold'' and inserting the following: ``which remains unclaimed 
     one year after the delivery to the Mayor may be sold''.
       (5) Special rule for sale of property consisting of 
     securities.--Section 122 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-222) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), abandoned property 
     consisting of securities delivered to the Mayor under this 
     Act may not be sold under this section until the expiration 
     of the 3-year period which begins on the date the property is 
     delivered to the Mayor, except that the Mayor may sell the 
     property prior to the expiration of such period if the Mayor 
     finds that sale at such time is in the best interests of the 
     District of Columbia.
       ``(2) If the Mayor sells any property described in 
     paragraph (1) prior to the expiration of the 3-year period 
     described in such paragraph, any person making a claim with 
     respect to the property pursuant to this Act prior to the 
     expiration of such period is entitled to either the proceeds 
     of the sale of the securities or the market value of the 
     securities at the time the claim is made, whichever is 
     greater, less any deduction for fees pursuant section 123(c). 
     If the Mayor does not sell any such property prior to the 
     expiration of such 3-year period, a person may make a claim 
     with respect to the property in accordance with section 124 
     and other applicable provisions of this Act.''.
       (6) Statute of limitations.--Section 129(b) of such Act 
     (D.C. Code, sec. 42-229(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) No action or proceeding may be commenced by the Mayor 
     to enforce any provision of this Act with respect to the 
     reporting, delivery, or payment of property more than 10 
     years after the holder specifically identified the property 
     in a report filed with the Mayor or gave express notice to 
     the Mayor of a dispute regarding the property. The period of 
     limitation shall be tolled in the absence of such a report or 
     other express notice, or by the filing of a report that is 
     fraudulent.''.
       (f) Interest and Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--Section 135 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 
     42-235) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a 
     person who fails to report, pay, or deliver property within 
     the time prescribed under this Act, or fails to perform other 
     duties imposed by this Act, shall pay (in addition to the 
     interest required under subsection (a)) a civil penalty of 
     $200 for each day the report, payment, or delivery is 
     withheld or the duty is not performed, up to a maximum of 
     $10,000.
       ``(c) A person who willfully fails to report, pay, or 
     deliver property within the time prescribed under this Act, 
     or fails to perform other duties imposed by this Act, shall 
     pay (in addition to the interest required under subsection 
     (a)) a civil penalty of $1,000 for each day the report, 
     payment, or delivery is withheld or the duty is not 
     performed, up to a maximum of $25,000, plus 25 percent of the 
     value of any property that should have been paid or 
     delivered.
       ``(d) The Mayor may waive the imposition of any interest or 
     penalty (or any part thereof) against any person under 
     subsection (b) or (c) if the person's failure to pay or 
     deliver property is satisfactorily explained to the Mayor and 
     if the failure has resulted from a mistake by the person in 
     understanding or applying the law or the facts involved.''.
       (2) Failure of holder to exercise due diligence with 
     respect to items subject to reporting.--Section 135 of such 
     Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-235) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(f) A holder who fails to exercise due diligence with 
     respect to information required to be reported under section 
     117 shall pay (in addition to any other interest or penalty 
     which may be imposed under this section) a penalty of $10 
     with respect to each item involved.''.
       (g) Miscellaneous Revisions.--
       (1) Restriction on amount charged for holding certain bank 
     deposits and funds.--(A) Section 106(e) of such Act (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 42-206(e)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) The amount of the deduction is limited to an amount 
     that is not unconscionable.''.
       (B) Section 106(f) of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-206(f)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The amount of the deduction is limited to an amount 
     that is not unconscionable.''.
       (2) Clarification of application of law to wages and other 
     compensation.--Section 116 of such Act (D.C. Code, sec. 42-
     216) is amended by striking ``Unpaid wages or outstanding 
     payroll checks'' and inserting ``Wages or other compensation 
     for personal services''.
       (h) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Transition rule.--In the case of any property which is 
     presumed to be abandoned under the Uniform Disposition of 
     Unclaimed Property Act of 1980 (as amended by this Act) 
     during the 6-month period which begins on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and which would not be presumed to be 
     abandoned under such Act during such period but for the 
     amendments made by this Act, the property may not be presumed 
     to be abandoned under such Act prior to the expiration of 
     such period.


                       restrictions on borrowing

       Sec. 158. (a) Prohibiting Use of Borrowing to Finance or 
     Refund Accumulated General Fund Deficit.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act or in any other Act may be used by 
     the District of Columbia (including the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority) 
     at any time before, on, or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act to obtain borrowing to finance or refund the 
     accumulated general fund deficit of the District of Columbia 
     existing as of September 30, 1997.
       (b) Restrictions on Use of Funds for Debt Restructuring.--
     None of the funds made available in this Act or in any other 
     Act may be used by the District of Columbia (including the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority) during fiscal year 1998 or any 
     succeeding fiscal year to obtain borrowing (including 
     borrowing through the issuance of any bonds, notes, or other 
     obligations) to repay any other borrowing of funds or 
     issuance of bonds, notes, or other obligations unless--
       (1) the aggregate cost to the District of the new borrowing 
     or issuance does not exceed the aggregate cost of the 
     original borrowing or issuance; and
       (2) the date provided for the final repayment of the new 
     borrowing or issuance is not later than the date provided for 
     the final repayment of the original borrowing or issuance.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     1 of part E of title IV of the District of Columbia Home Rule 
     Act is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 468. Restrictions on restructuring of debt.''.
       (c) Prohibiting Use of Funds for Private Bond Sales.--None 
     of the funds made available in this Act or in any other Act 
     may be used by the District of Columbia (including the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority) during fiscal year 1998 or any 
     succeeding fiscal year to sell any bonds at a private sale.


                    reopening of pennsylvania avenue

       Sec. 159. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any 
     other rule or regulation, beginning January 1, 1998, the 
     portion of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House 
     shall be reopened to regular vehicular traffic.


 independence in contracting for chief financial officer and inspector 
                                general

       Sec. 160. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, neither the Mayor of the District of 
     Columbia or the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority may enter into any 
     contract with respect to any authority or activity under the 
     jurisdiction of the Chief Financial Officer or Inspector 
     General of the District of Columbia without the consent and 
     approval of the Chief Financial Officer or Inspector General 
     (as the case may be).
       (b) Effect on Other Powers and Duties of Authority.--
     Nothing in this section may be construed--
       (1) to affect the ability of the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority 
     to remove the Chief Financial Officer or Inspector General of 
     the District of Columbia from office during a control year 
     (as defined in section 305(4) of the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and management Assistance Act of 
     1995); or
       (2) to exempt any contracts entered into by the Chief 
     Financial Officer or Inspector General from review by the 
     Authority under section 203(b) of such Act.


                        miscellaneous provisions

       Sec. 161. (a) Deposit of Annual Federal Contribution With 
     Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995, as 
     amended by section 11601(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997, is amended by inserting after section 204 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 205. DEPOSIT OF ANNUAL FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION WITH 
                   AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) In General.--

[[Page H8773]]

       ``(1) Deposit into escrow account.--In the case of a fiscal 
     year which is a control year, the Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall deposit any Federal contribution to the District of 
     Columbia for the year authorized under section 11601(c)(2) of 
     the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 into an escrow account held 
     by the Authority, which shall allocate the funds to the Mayor 
     at such intervals and in accordance with such terms and 
     conditions as it considers appropriate to implement the 
     financial plan for the year. In establishing such terms and 
     conditions, the Authority shall give priority to using the 
     Federal contribution for cash flow management and the payment 
     of outstanding bills owed by the District government.
       ``(2) Exception for amounts withheld for advances.--
     Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any portion of 
     the Federal contribution which is withheld by the Secretary 
     of the Treasury in accordance with section 605(b)(2) of title 
     VI of the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1939 to 
     reimburse the Secretary for advances made under title VI of 
     such Act.
       ``(b) Expenditure of Funds from Account in Accordance With 
     Authority Instructions.--Any funds allocated by the Authority 
     to the Mayor from the escrow account described in paragraph 
     (1) may be expended by the Mayor only in accordance with the 
     terms and conditions established by the Authority at the time 
     the funds are allocated.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents for such Act 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     204 the following new item:

``Sec. 205. Deposit of annual Federal contribution with Authority.''.

       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
       (b) Dishonored Check Collection.--The Act entitled ``An Act 
     to authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to 
     prescribe penalties for the handling and collection of 
     dishonored checks'', approved September 28, 1965 (D.C. Code, 
     sec. 1-357) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by inserting after the third sentence 
     the following: ``The Mayor may enter into a contract to 
     collect the amount of the original obligation.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(c) In a case in which the amount of a dishonored or 
     unpaid check is collected as a result of a contract, the 
     Mayor shall collect any costs or expenses incurred to collect 
     such amount from such person who gives or causes to be given, 
     in payment of any obligation or liability due the government 
     of the District of Columbia, a check which is subsequently 
     dishonored or not duly paid. In a case in which the amount of 
     a dishonored or unpaid check is collected as a result of an 
     action at law or in equity, such costs and expenses shall 
     include litigation expenses and attorney's fees.
       ``(d) An action at law or in equity for the recovery of any 
     amount owed to the District as a result of subsection (c), 
     including any litigation expenses or attorney's fees may be 
     initiated--
       ``(1) by the Corporation Counsel of the District of 
     Columbia; or
       ``(2) in a case in which the Corporation Counsel does not 
     exercise his or her authority, by the person who provides 
     collection services as a result of a contract with the Mayor.
       ``(e) Nothing in this section may be construed to eliminate 
     the Mayor's exclusive authority with respect to any 
     obligations and liabilities of the District of Columbia.''.
       (c) Requiring District Government Officials to Provide 
     Information Upon Request to Congressional Committees.--
     Notwithstanding any provision of law or any other rule or 
     regulation, during fiscal year 1998 and each succeeding 
     fiscal year, at the request of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate, the Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives, or the 
     Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, any officer 
     or employee of the District of Columbia government (including 
     any officer or employee of the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority) shall 
     provide the Committee with such information and materials as 
     the Committee may require, within such deadline as the 
     Committee may require.
       (d) Prohibiting Certain Helicopter Flights Over District.--
     None of the funds made available in this Act or in any other 
     Act may be used by the District of Columbia to grant a permit 
     or license to any person for purposes of any business in 
     which the person provides tours of any portion of the 
     District of Columbia by helicopter.
       (e) Conforming References to Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.--Section 4(28A) of the District of Columbia Income and 
     Franchise Act of 1947 (D.C. Code, sec. 47-1801.4(28A)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(28A) The term `Internal Revenue Code of 1986' means the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (100 Stat. 2085; 26 U.S.C. 1 et 
     seq.), as amended through August 20, 1996. The provisions of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be effective on the 
     same dates that they are effective for Federal tax 
     purposes.''.
       (f) Standard for Review of Recommendations of Business 
     Regulatory Reform Commission in Review of Regulations by 
     Authority.--Section 11701(a)(1) of the Balanced Budget Act of 
     1997 is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting 
     the following: ``In carrying out such review, the Authority 
     shall include an explicit reference to each recommendation 
     made by the Business Regulatory Reform Commission pursuant to 
     the Business Regulatory Reform Commission Act of 1994 (D.C. 
     Code, sec. 2-4101 et seq.), together with specific findings 
     and conclusions with respect to each such recommendation.''.
       (g) Technical Corrections Relating to Balanced Budget Act 
     of 1997.--(1) Effective as if included in the enactment of 
     the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, section 453(c) of the 
     District of Columbia Home Rule Act (D.C. Code, sec. 47-
     304.1(c)), as amended by section 11243(d) of the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available to the Council, the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority established under section 101(a) of the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Act of 1995, or the District of Columbia Water and 
     Sewer Authority established pursuant to the Water and Sewer 
     Authority Establishment and Department of Public Works 
     Reorganization Act of 1996.''.
       (2) Section 11201(g)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget Act 
     of 1997 is amended--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Department of parks and 
     recreation'' and inserting ``parks authority''; and
       (B) by striking ``Department of Parks and Recreation'' and 
     inserting ``Parks Authority''.
       (h) Repeal of Prior Notice Requirement for Federal 
     Activities Affecting Real Property in District of Columbia.--
     Effective October 1, 1997, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
     (Public Law 105-33) is amended by striking section 11715.
       This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1998''.
        TITLE II--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM
 Subtitle A--Standards for Health Care Liability Actions and Claims in 
                        the District of Columbia

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Medical Liability Reform Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 202. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       A District of Columbia health care liability action may not 
     be brought after the expiration of the 2-year period that 
     begins on the date on which the alleged injury that is the 
     subject of the action was discovered or should reasonably 
     have been discovered, but in no case after the expiration of 
     the 5-year period that begins on the date the alleged injury 
     occurred.

     SEC. 203. TREATMENT OF NONECONOMIC DAMAGES.

       (a) Limitation on Noneconomic Damages.--The total amount of 
     noneconomic damages that may be awarded to a claimant for 
     losses resulting from the injury which is the subject of a 
     District of Columbia health care liability action may not 
     exceed $250,000, regardless of the number of parties against 
     whom the action is brought or the number of actions brought 
     with respect to the injury.
       (b) Joint and Several Liability.--In any District of 
     Columbia health care liability action, a defendant shall be 
     liable only for the amount of noneconomic damages 
     attributable to such defendant in direct proportion to such 
     defendant's share of fault or responsibility for the 
     claimant's actual damages, as determined by the trier of 
     fact. In all such cases, the liability of a defendant for 
     noneconomic damages shall be several and not joint.

     SEC. 204. CRITERIA FOR AWARDING OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES; 
                   LIMITATION ON AMOUNT AWARDED.

       (a) In General.--Punitive damages may, to the extent 
     permitted by applicable District of Columbia law, be awarded 
     in any District of Columbia health care liability action if 
     the claimant establishes by clear and convincing evidence 
     that the harm suffered was the result of--
       (1) conduct specifically intended to cause harm, or
       (2) conduct manifesting a conscious, flagrant indifference 
     to the rights or safety of others.
       (b) Proportional Awards.--The amount of punitive damages 
     that may be awarded in any District of Columbia health care 
     liability action may not exceed 3 times the amount of damages 
     awarded to the claimant for economic loss, or $250,000, 
     whichever is greater. This subsection shall be applied by the 
     court and shall not be disclosed to the jury.
       (c) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to any 
     District of Columbia health care liability action brought on 
     any theory under which punitive damages are sought. This 
     subsection does not create a cause of action for punitive 
     damages. This subsection does not preempt or supersede any 
     law to the extent that such law would further limit the award 
     of punitive damages.
       (d) Bifurcation.--At the request of any party, the trier of 
     fact shall consider in a separate proceeding whether punitive 
     damages are to be awarded and the amount of such award. If a 
     separate proceeding is requested, evidence relevant only to 
     the claim of punitive damages, as determined by applicable 
     District of Columbia law, shall be inadmissible in any 
     proceeding to determine whether actual damages are to be 
     awarded.

[[Page H8774]]

     SEC. 205. TREATMENT OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN ACTIONS RELATING 
                   TO DRUGS OR MEDICAL DEVICES.

       (a) Prohibiting Award of Punitive Damages With Respect to 
     Certain Approved Drugs and Devices.--
       (1) In general.--In any District of Columbia health care 
     liability action, punitive damages may not be awarded against 
     a manufacturer or product seller of a drug or medical device 
     which caused the claimant's harm if--
       (A) such drug or device was subject to premarket approval 
     by the Food and Drug Administration with respect to the 
     safety of the formulation or performance of the aspect of 
     such drug or device which caused the claimant's harm, or the 
     adequacy of the packaging or labeling of such drug or device 
     which caused the harm, and such drug, device, packaging, or 
     labeling was approved by the Food and Drug Administration; or
       (B) the drug is generally recognized as safe and effective 
     pursuant to conditions established by the Food and Drug 
     Administration and applicable regulations, including 
     packaging and labeling regulations.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in any case 
     in which the defendant, before or after premarket approval of 
     a drug or device--
       (A) intentionally and wrongfully withheld from or 
     misrepresented to the Food and Drug Administration 
     information concerning such drug or device required to be 
     submitted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.) or section 351 of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262) that is material and relevant to 
     the harm suffered by the claimant, or
       (C) made an illegal payment to an official or employee of 
     the Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of securing 
     or maintaining approval of such drug or device.
       (b) Special Rule Regarding Claims Relating to Packaging.--
     In a District of Columbia health care liability action 
     relating to the adequacy of the packaging or labeling of a 
     drug which is required to have tamper-resistant packaging 
     under regulations of the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (including labeling regulations related to such 
     packaging), the manufacturer or product seller of the drug 
     shall not be held liable for punitive damages unless such 
     packaging or labeling is found by the court by clear and 
     convincing evidence to be substantially out of compliance 
     with such regulations.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Drug.--The term ``drug'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)).
       (2) Medical device.--The term ``medical device'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 201(h) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(h)).
       (3) Product seller.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     ``product seller'' means a person who, in the course of a 
     business conducted for that purpose--
       (i) sells, distributes, rents, leases, prepares, blends, 
     packages, labels, or is otherwise involved in placing, a 
     product in the stream of commerce, or
       (ii) installs, repairs, or maintains the harm-causing 
     aspect of a product.
       (B) Exclusion.--Such term does not include--
       (i) a seller or lessor of real property;
       (ii) a provider of professional services in any case in 
     which the sale or use of a product is incidental to the 
     transaction and the essence of the transaction is the 
     furnishing of judgment, skill, or services; or
       (iii) any person who--

       (I) acts in only a financial capacity with respect to the 
     sale of a product; or
       (II) leases a product under a lease arrangement in which 
     the selection, possession, maintenance, and operation of the 
     product are controlled by a person other than the lessor.

     SEC. 206. PERIODIC PAYMENTS FOR FUTURE LOSSES.

       (a) In General.--In any District of Columbia health care 
     liability action in which the damages awarded for future 
     economic and noneconomic loss exceeds $50,000, a person shall 
     not be required to pay such damages in a single, lump-sum 
     payment, but shall be permitted to make such payments 
     periodically based on when the damages are found likely to 
     occur, as such payments are determined by the court.
       (b) Finality of Judgment.--The judgment of the court 
     awarding periodic payments under this section may not, in the 
     absence of fraud, be reopened at any time to contest, amend, 
     or modify the schedule or amount of the payments.
       (c) Lump-sum Settlements.--This section may not be 
     construed to preclude a settlement providing for a single, 
     lump-sum payment.

     SEC. 207. TREATMENT OF COLLATERAL SOURCE PAYMENTS.

       (a) Introduction Into Evidence.--In any District of 
     Columbia health care liability action, any defendant may 
     introduce evidence of collateral source payments. If any 
     defendant elects to introduce such evidence, the claimant may 
     introduce evidence of any amount paid or contributed or 
     reasonably likely to be paid or contributed in the future by 
     or on behalf of the claimant to secure the right to such 
     collateral source payments.
       (b) No Subrogation.--No provider of collateral source 
     payments may recover any amount against the claimant or 
     receive any lien or credit against the claimant's recovery or 
     be equitably or legally subrogated the right of the claimant 
     in a District of Columbia health care liability action.
       (c) Application to Settlements.--This section shall apply 
     to an action that is settled as well as an action that is 
     resolved by a fact finder.
       (d) Collateral Source Payments Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``collateral source payments'' means any amount paid 
     or reasonably likely to be paid in the future to or on behalf 
     of a claimant, or any service, product, or other benefit 
     provided or reasonably likely to be provided in the future to 
     or on behalf of a claimant, as a result of an injury or 
     wrongful death, pursuant to--
       (1) any State or Federal health, sickness, income-
     disability, accident or workers' compensation Act;
       (2) any health, sickness, income-disability, or accident 
     insurance that provides health benefits or income-disability 
     coverage;
       (3) any contract or agreement of any group, organization, 
     partnership, or corporation to provide, pay for, or reimburse 
     the cost of medical, hospital, dental, or income disability 
     benefits; and
       (4) any other publicly or privately funded program.

     SEC. 208. APPLICATION OF STANDARDS TO CLAIMS RESOLVED THROUGH 
                   ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

       (a) In General.--Any alternative dispute resolution system 
     used to resolve a District of Columbia health care liability 
     action or claim shall contain provisions relating to statute 
     of limitations, non-economic damages, joint and several 
     liability, punitive damages, collateral source rule, and 
     periodic payments which are identical to the provisions 
     relating to such matters in this title.
       (b) Alternative Dispute Resolution System Defined.--In this 
     title, the term ``alternative dispute resolution system'' 
     means a system that provides for the resolution of District 
     of Columbia health care liability claims in a manner other 
     than through District of Columbia health care liability 
     actions.
                     Subtitle B--General Provisions

     SEC. 211. GENERAL DEFINITIONS.

       (a) District of Columbia Health Care Liability Action.--
       (1) In general.--In this title, the term ``District of 
     Columbia health care liability action'' means a civil action 
     brought against a health care provider, an entity which is 
     obligated to provide or pay for health benefits under any 
     health benefit plan (including any person or entity acting 
     under a contract or arrangement to provide or administer any 
     health benefit), or the manufacturer, distributor, supplier, 
     marketer, promoter, or seller of a medical product, in which 
     the claimant alleges a claim (including third party claims, 
     cross claims, counter claims, or distribution claims) based 
     upon the provision of (or the failure to provide or pay for) 
     health care services or the use of a medical product within 
     the District of Columbia, regardless of the theory of 
     liability on which the claim is based or the number of 
     plaintiffs, defendants, or causes of action.
       (2) Health benefit plan.--The term ``health benefit plan'' 
     means--
       (A) a hospital or medical expense incurred policy or 
     certificate,
       (B) a hospital or medical service plan contract,
       (C) a health maintenance subscriber contract, or
       (D) a Medicare+Choice plan (as described in section 
     1859(b)(1) of the Social Security Act),

     that provides benefits with respect to health care services.
       (3) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means any person that is engaged in the delivery 
     of health care services in the District of Columbia and that 
     is required by the laws or regulations of the District of 
     Columbia to be licensed or certified to engage in the 
     delivery of such services in the District of Columbia, and 
     includes an employee of the government of the District of 
     Columbia (including an independent agency of the District of 
     Columbia).
       (b) District of Columbia Health Care Liability Claim.--The 
     term ``District of Columbia health care liability claim'' 
     means a claim in which the claimant alleges that injury was 
     caused by the provision of (or the failure to provide) health 
     care services within the District of Columbia.
       (c) Other Definitions.--As used in this title:
       (1) Actual damages.--The term ``actual damages'' means 
     damages awarded to pay for economic loss.
       (2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who 
     brings a District of Columbia health care liability action 
     and any person on whose behalf such an action is brought. If 
     such action is brought through or on behalf of an estate, the 
     term includes the claimant's decedent. If such action is 
     brought through or on behalf of a minor or incompetent, the 
     term includes the claimant's legal guardian.
       (3) Clear and convincing evidence.--The term ``clear and 
     convincing evidence'' is that measure or degree of proof that 
     will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief 
     or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be 
     established. Such measure or degree of proof is more than 
     that required under preponderance of the evidence but less 
     than that required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
       (4) Economic loss.--The term ``economic loss'' means any 
     pecuniary loss resulting

[[Page H8775]]

     from injury (including the loss of earnings or other benefits 
     related to employment, medical expense loss, replacement 
     services loss, loss due to death, burial costs, and loss of 
     business or employment opportunities), to the extent recovery 
     for such loss is allowed under applicable District of 
     Columbia law.
       (5) Harm.--The term ``harm'' means any legally cognizable 
     wrong or injury for which punitive damages may be imposed.
       (6) Health care service.--The term ``health care service'' 
     means any service for which payment may be made under a 
     health benefit plan including services related to the 
     delivery or administration of such service.
       (7) Noneconomic damages.--The term ``noneconomic damages'' 
     means damages paid to an individual for pain and suffering, 
     inconvenience, emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of 
     consortium, injury to reputation, humiliation, and other 
     nonpecuniary losses.
       (8) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual, 
     corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, 
     society, joint stock company, or any other entity, including 
     any governmental entity.
       (9) Punitive damages.--The term ``punitive damages'' means 
     damages awarded against any person not to compensate for 
     actual injury suffered, but to punish or deter such person or 
     others from engaging in similar behavior in the future.

     SEC. 212. NONAPPLICATION TO CERTAIN ACTIONS; PREEMPTION.

       (a) Applicability.--This title shall not apply to--
       (1) an action for damages arising from a vaccine-related 
     injury or death to the extent that title XXI of the Public 
     Health Service Act applies to the action, or
       (2) an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
       (b) Preemption.--This title shall preempt any District of 
     Columbia law to the extent such law is inconsistent with the 
     limitations contained in this title. This title shall not 
     preempt any District of Columbia law that provides for 
     defenses or places limitations on a person's liability in 
     addition to those contained in this title or otherwise 
     imposes greater restrictions than those provided in this 
     title.
       (c) Effect on Sovereign Immunity and Choice of Law or 
     Venue.--Nothing in this title may be construed to--
       (1) waive or affect any defense of sovereign immunity 
     asserted by the District of Columbia under any provision of 
     law;
       (2) waive or affect any defense of sovereign immunity 
     asserted by the United States;
       (3) affect the applicability of any provision of the 
     Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976;
       (4) preempt any choice-of-law rules with respect to claims 
     brought by a foreign nation or a citizen of a foreign nation; 
     or
       (5) affect the right of any court to transfer venue or to 
     apply the law of a foreign nation or to dismiss a claim of a 
     foreign nation or of a citizen of a foreign nation on the 
     ground of inconvenient forum.

     SEC. 213. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING JURISDICTION OF 
                   FEDERAL COURTS.

       (a) Amount in Controversy.--In an action to which this 
     title applies and which is brought under section 1332 of 
     title 28, United States Code, the amount of noneconomic 
     damages or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees or costs, 
     shall not be included in determining whether the matter in 
     controversy exceeds the sum or value of $50,000.
       (b) Federal Court Jurisdiction Not Established on Federal 
     Question Grounds.--Nothing in this title shall be construed 
     to establish any jurisdiction in the district courts of the 
     United States over District of Columbia health care liability 
     actions on the basis of section 1331 or 1337 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
                       Subtitle C--Effective Date

     SEC. 221. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall apply to any District of Columbia health 
     care liability action and to any District of Columbia health 
     care liability claim subject to an alternative dispute 
     resolution system, that is initiated on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this title, except that any such action or 
     claim arising from an injury occurring prior to such date 
     shall be governed by the applicable statute of limitations 
     provisions in effect at the time the injury occurred.
      TITLE III--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EDUCATION REFORM ACT OF 1997
  Subtitle A--Amendments to District of Columbia School Reform Act of 
                                  1995

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Education Reform Amendments Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 302. GENERAL EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Section 2003 of the District of Columbia School Reform Act 
     of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-112; D.C. Code 
     Sec. 31-2851) is amended by striking ``shall be effective'' 
     and all that follows through the period at the end and 
     inserting ``shall take effect on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.''.

     SEC. 303. TIMETABLE FOR APPROVAL OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL 
                   PETITIONS.

       Section 2203(i)(2)(A) of the District of Columbia School 
     Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 3009-504; 
     D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.13(i)(2)(A)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Annual limit.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and clause 
     (ii), during calendar year 1997, and during each subsequent 
     calendar year, each eligible chartering authority shall not 
     approve more than 10 petitions to establish a public charter 
     school under this subtitle.
       ``(ii) Timetable.--Any petition approved under clause (i) 
     shall be approved during an application approval period that 
     terminates on April 1 of each year. Such an approval period 
     may commence before or after January 1 of the calendar year 
     in which it terminates, except that any petition approved at 
     any time during such an approval period shall count, for 
     purposes of clause (i), against the total number of petitions 
     approved during the calendar year in which the approval 
     period terminates.''.

     SEC. 304. INCREASE IN PERMITTED NUMBER OF TRUSTEES OF PUBLIC 
                   CHARTER SCHOOL.

       Section 2205(a) of the District of Columbia School Reform 
     Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-122; D.C. 
     Code Sec. 31-2853.15(a)) is amended by striking ``7,'' and 
     inserting ``15,''.

     SEC. 305. LEASE TERMS FOR PERSONS OPERATING CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) Leasing Former or Unused Public School Properties.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2209(b)(1)(A) of the District of 
     Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; 110 
     Stat. 3009-505; D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.19(b)(1)(A)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law relating to the disposition of a facility or property 
     described in subparagraph (C), the Mayor and the District of 
     Columbia Government--
       ``(i) subject to clause (ii), shall give preference to an 
     eligible applicant whose petition to establish a public 
     charter school has been conditionally approved under section 
     2203(d)(2), or a Board of Trustees, with respect to the 
     purchase of a facility or property described in subparagraph 
     (C), if doing so will not result in a significant loss of 
     revenue that might be obtained from other dispositions or 
     uses of the facility or property; and
       ``(ii) shall lease a facility or property described in 
     subparagraph (C), at an annual rate of $1, to an eligible 
     applicant whose petition to establish a public charter school 
     has been conditionally approved under section 2203(d)(2), or 
     a Board of Trustees, if--

       ``(I) the eligible applicant or Board of Trustees requests 
     a lease pursuant to this paragraph for the purpose of 
     operating the facility or property as a public charter school 
     under this subtitle; and
       ``(II) the facility or property is not yet otherwise 
     disposed of (by sale, lease, or otherwise).''.

       (2) Termination of lease.--Section 2209(b)(1) of the 
     District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
     104-134; 110 Stat. 3009-505; D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.19(b)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Termination of lease.--Any lease entered into 
     pursuant to this paragraph with respect to a public charter 
     school shall be deemed to terminate--
       ``(i) upon the denial of an application to renew the 
     charter granted to the school under section 2212, or, in a 
     case where judicial review of the denial is sought under 
     section 2212(d)(6), upon the entry of an order, not subject 
     to further review, upholding a decision to deny such an 
     application, whichever occurs later;
       ``(ii) upon the revocation of the charter granted to the 
     school under section 2213, or, in a case where judicial 
     review of the revocation is sought under section 2213(c)(6), 
     upon the entry of an order, not subject to further review, 
     upholding the revocation, whichever occurs later; or
       ``(iii) in the case of a lease to an eligible applicant 
     whose petition to establish a public charter school has been 
     conditionally approved under section 2203(d)(2), upon the 
     termination of such conditional approval by reason of the 
     applicant's failure timely to submit the identification and 
     information described in section 2202(6)(B)(i).''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 225(d) of the District 
     of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-8; 110 Stat. 3009-508; 
     D.C. Code Sec. 47-392.25(d)) is amended by striking ``section 
     2209(b)(1)(B) of the District of Columbia School Reform Act 
     of 1995'' and inserting ``section 2209(b)(1)(C) of the 
     District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995, other than a 
     facility or real property that is subject to a lease under 
     section 2209(b)(1)(A)(ii) of such Act,''.
       (b) Conversions of Public Schools.--Section 2209(b) of the 
     District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
     104-134; 110 Stat. 3009-505; D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.19(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Special rule for persons converting public school 
     into charter school.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law relating to the disposition of a facility or property 
     described in this paragraph, the Mayor and the District of 
     Columbia Government shall lease a facility or property, at an 
     annual rate of $1, to an eligible applicant whose petition to 
     establish a public charter school has been conditionally 
     approved under section 2203(d)(2), or a Board of Trustees, 
     if--
       ``(i) the facility or property is under the jurisdiction of 
     the Board of Education;

[[Page H8776]]

       ``(ii) the eligible applicant or Board of Trustees requests 
     a lease pursuant to this paragraph for the purpose of 
     operating the facility or property as a public charter school 
     under this subtitle; and
       ``(iii) immediately prior to the date of such request, the 
     facility or property--

       ``(I) was operated as a District of Columbia public school, 
     and the requirements of section 2202(a) were met; or
       ``(II) was operated as a public charter school under this 
     subtitle.

       ``(B) Termination of lease.--Any lease entered into 
     pursuant to this paragraph with respect to a public charter 
     school shall be deemed to terminate--
       ``(i) upon the denial of an application to renew the 
     charter granted to the school under section 2212, or, in a 
     case where judicial review of the denial is sought under 
     section 2212(d)(6), upon the entry of an order, not subject 
     to further review, upholding a decision to deny such an 
     application, whichever occurs later;
       ``(ii) upon the revocation of the charter granted to the 
     school under section 2213, or, in a case where judicial 
     review of the revocation is sought under section 2213(c)(6), 
     upon the entry of an order, not subject to further review, 
     upholding the revocation, whichever occurs later; or
       ``(iii) in the case of a lease to an eligible applicant 
     whose petition to establish a public charter school has been 
     conditionally approved under section 2203(d)(2), upon the 
     termination of such conditional approval by reason of the 
     applicant's failure timely to submit the identification and 
     information described in section 2202(6)(B)(i).''.
       (c) Leasing Current Public School Properties.--
       (1) In general.--Section 2209(b)(2)(A) of the District of 
     Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; 110 
     Stat. 3009-506; D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.19(b)(2)(A)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law relating to the disposition of a facility or property 
     described in subparagraph (C), but subject to paragraph (3), 
     the Mayor and the District of Columbia Government shall lease 
     a facility or property described in subparagraph (C), at an 
     annual rate of $1, to an eligible applicant whose petition to 
     establish a public charter school has been conditionally 
     approved under section 2203(d)(2), or a Board of Trustees, if 
     the eligible applicant or Board of Trustees requests a lease 
     pursuant to this paragraph for the purpose of--
       ``(i) operating the facility or property as a public 
     charter school under this subtitle; or
       ``(ii) using the facility or property for a purpose 
     directly related to the operation of a public charter school 
     under this subtitle.''.
       (2) Termination of lease.--Section 2209(b)(2) of the 
     District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
     104-134; 110 Stat. 3009-506; D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.19(b)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C); 
     and
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Termination of lease.--Any lease entered into 
     pursuant to this paragraph with respect to a public charter 
     school shall be deemed to terminate--
       ``(i) upon the denial of an application to renew the 
     charter granted to the school under section 2212, or, in a 
     case where judicial review of the denial is sought under 
     section 2212(d)(6), upon the entry of an order, not subject 
     to further review, upholding a decision to deny such an 
     application, whichever occurs later;
       ``(ii) upon the revocation of the charter granted to the 
     school under section 2213, or, in a case where judicial 
     review of the revocation is sought under section 2213(c)(6), 
     upon the entry of an order, not subject to further review, 
     upholding the revocation, whichever occurs later; or
       ``(iii) in the case of a lease to an eligible applicant 
     whose petition to establish a public charter school has been 
     conditionally approved under section 2203(d)(2), upon the 
     termination of such conditional approval by reason of the 
     applicant's failure timely to submit the identification and 
     information described in section 2202(6)(B)(i).''.

     SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PUBLIC CHARTER 
                   SCHOOL BOARD.

       Section 2214(g) of the District of Columbia School Reform 
     Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-133; D.C. 
     Code Sec. 31-2853.24(g)) is amended by inserting ``to the 
     Board'' after ``appropriated''.

     SEC. 307. ADJUSTMENT OF ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL 
                   SCHOOLS.

       Section 2401(b)(3)(B) of the District of Columbia School 
     Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-137; 
     D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.41(b)(3)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'';
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) to whom the school provides room and board in a 
     residential setting.''.

     SEC. 308. ADJUSTMENT OF ANNUAL PAYMENT FOR FACILITIES COSTS.

       Section 2401(b)(3) of the District of Columbia School 
     Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-137; 
     D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.41(b)(3)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(C) Adjustment for facilities costs.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (2), the Mayor and the District of Columbia 
     Council, in consultation with the Board of Education and the 
     Superintendent, shall adjust the amount of the annual payment 
     under paragraph (1) to increase the amount of such payment 
     for a public charter school to take into account leases or 
     purchases of, or improvements to, real property, if the 
     school, not later than April 1 of the fiscal year preceding 
     the payment, requests such an adjustment.''.

     SEC. 309. PAYMENTS TO NEW CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2403(b) of the District of 
     Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134; 110 
     Stat. 1321-140; D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.43(b)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Payments to New Schools.--
       ``(1) Establishment of fund.--There is established in the 
     general fund of the District of Columbia a fund to be known 
     as the `New Charter School Fund'.
       ``(2) Contents of fund.--The New Charter School Fund shall 
     consist of--
       ``(A) unexpended and unobligated amounts appropriated from 
     local funds for public charter schools for fiscal year 1997 
     that reverted to the general fund of the District of 
     Columbia;
       ``(B) amounts credited to the fund in accordance with this 
     subsection upon the receipt by a public charter school 
     described in paragraph (5) of its first initial payment under 
     subsection (a)(2)(A) or its first final payment under 
     subsection (a)(2)(B); and
       ``(C) any interest earned on such amounts.
       ``(3) Expenditures from fund.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than June 1, 1998, and not 
     later than June 1 of each year thereafter, the Chief 
     Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall pay, from 
     the New Charter School Fund, to each public charter school 
     described in paragraph (5), an amount equal to 25 percent of 
     the amount yielded by multiplying the uniform dollar amount 
     used in the formula established under section 2401(b) by the 
     total anticipated enrollment as set forth in the petition to 
     establish the public charter school.
       ``(B) Pro rata reduction.--If the amounts in the New 
     Charter School Fund for any year are insufficient to pay the 
     full amount that each public charter school described in 
     paragraph (5) is eligible to receive under this subsection 
     for such year, the Chief Financial Officer of the District of 
     Columbia shall ratably reduce such amounts for such year on 
     the basis of the formula described in section 2401(b).
       ``(C) Form of payment.--Payments under this subsection 
     shall be made by electronic funds transfer from the New 
     Charter School Fund to a bank designated by a public charter 
     school.
       ``(4) Credits to fund.--Upon the receipt by a public 
     charter school described in paragraph (5) of--
       ``(A) its first initial payment under subsection (a)(2)(A), 
     the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall 
     credit the New Charter School Fund with 75 percent of the 
     amount paid to the school under paragraph (3); and
       ``(B) its first final payment under subsection (a)(2)(B), 
     the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall 
     credit the New Charter School Fund with 25 percent of the 
     amount paid to the school under paragraph (3).
       ``(5) Schools described.--A public charter school described 
     in this paragraph is a public charter school that--
       ``(A) did not enroll any students during any portion of the 
     fiscal year preceding the most recent fiscal year for which 
     funds are appropriated to carry out this subsection; and
       ``(B) operated as a public charter school during the most 
     recent fiscal year for which funds are appropriated to carry 
     out this subsection.
       ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Chief Financial Officer 
     of the District of Columbia such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out this subsection for each fiscal year.''.
       (b) Reduction of Annual Payment.--
       (1) Initial payment.--Section 2403(a)(2)(A) of the District 
     of Columbia School Reform Act (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 
     1321-139; D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.43(a)(2)(A)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(A) Initial payment.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), not 
     later than October 15, 1996, and not later than October 15 of 
     each year thereafter, the Mayor shall transfer, by electronic 
     funds transfer, an amount equal to 75 percent of the amount 
     of the annual payment for each public charter school 
     determined by using the formula established pursuant to 
     section 2401(b) to a bank designated by such school.
       ``(ii) Reduction in case of new school.--In the case of a 
     public charter school that has received a payment under 
     subsection (b) in the fiscal year immediately preceding the 
     fiscal year in which a transfer under clause (i) is made, the 
     amount transferred to the school under clause (i) shall be 
     reduced by an amount equal to 75 percent of the amount of the 
     payment under subsection (b).''.
       (2) Final payment.--Section 2403(a)(2)(B) of the District 
     of Columbia School Reform Act (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 
     1321-139; D.C. Code Sec. 31-2853.43(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) by inserting ``In general.--'' before ``Except''; and
       (ii) by striking ``clause (ii),'' and inserting ``clauses 
     (ii) and (iii),'';
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``Adjustment for 
     enrollment.--'' before ``Not later than March 15, 1997,''; 
     and

[[Page H8777]]

       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) Reduction in case of new school.--In the case of a 
     public charter school that has received a payment under 
     subsection (b) in the fiscal year immediately preceding the 
     fiscal year in which a transfer under clause (i) is made, the 
     amount transferred to the school under clause (i) shall be 
     reduced by an amount equal to 25 percent of the amount of the 
     payment under subsection (b).''.

     SEC. 310. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PRIVATE, NONPROFIT 
                   CORPORATION.

       Section 2603 of the District of Columbia School Reform Act 
     (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-144; D.C. Code Sec. 31-
     2853.63) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 2603. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PRIVATE, NONPROFIT 
                   CORPORATION.

       ``A private, nonprofit corporation shall be eligible to 
     receive a grant under section 2602 if the corporation is a 
     business organization incorporated in the District of 
     Columbia, that--
       ``(1) has a board of directors which includes members who 
     are also executives of technology-related corporations 
     involved in education and workforce development issues;
       ``(2) has extensive practical experience with initiatives 
     that link business resources and expertise with education and 
     training systems;
       ``(3) has experience in working with State and local 
     educational agencies with respect to the integration of 
     academic studies with workforce preparation programs; and
       ``(4) has a structure through which additional resources 
     can be leveraged and innovative practices disseminated.''.
              Subtitle B--Student Opportunity Scholarships

     SEC. 341. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this subtitle--
       (1) the term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors of the 
     Corporation established under section 342(b)(1);
       (2) the term ``Corporation'' means the District of Columbia 
     Scholarship Corporation established under section 342(a);
       (3) the term ``eligible institution''--
       (A) in the case of an eligible institution serving a 
     student who receives a tuition scholarship under section 
     343(d)(1), means a public, private, or independent elementary 
     or secondary school; and
       (B) in the case of an eligible institution serving a 
     student who receives an enhanced achievement scholarship 
     under section 343(d)(2), means an elementary or secondary 
     school, or an entity that provides services to a student 
     enrolled in an elementary or secondary school to enhance such 
     student's achievement through activities described in section 
     343(d)(2);
       (4) the term ``parent'' includes a legal guardian or other 
     person standing in loco parentis; and
       (5) the term ``poverty line'' means the income official 
     poverty line (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and revised annually in accordance with section 
     673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 
     9902(2)) applicable to a family of the size involved.

     SEC. 342. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOLARSHIP CORPORATION.

       (a) General Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be established a 
     private, nonprofit corporation, to be known as the ``District 
     of Columbia Scholarship Corporation'', which is neither an 
     agency nor establishment of the United States Government or 
     the District of Columbia Government.
       (2) Duties.--The Corporation shall have the responsibility 
     and authority to administer, publicize, and evaluate the 
     scholarship program in accordance with this subtitle, and to 
     determine student and school eligibility for participation in 
     such program.
       (3) Consultation.--The Corporation shall exercise its 
     authority--
       (A) in a manner consistent with maximizing educational 
     opportunities for the maximum number of interested families; 
     and
       (B) in consultation with the District of Columbia Board of 
     Education or entity exercising administrative jurisdiction 
     over the District of Columbia Public Schools, the 
     Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools, 
     and other school scholarship programs in the District of 
     Columbia.
       (4) Application of provisions.--The Corporation shall be 
     subject to the provisions of this subtitle, and, to the 
     extent consistent with this subtitle, to the District of 
     Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-501 et 
     seq.).
       (5) Residence.--The Corporation shall have its place of 
     business in the District of Columbia and shall be considered, 
     for purposes of venue in civil actions, to be a resident of 
     the District of Columbia.
       (6) Fund.--There is established in the Treasury a fund that 
     shall be known as the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund, 
     to be administered by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (7) Disbursement.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall make 
     available and disburse to the Corporation, before October 15 
     of each fiscal year or not later than 15 days after the date 
     of enactment of an Act making appropriations for the District 
     of Columbia for such year, whichever occurs later, such funds 
     as have been appropriated to the District of Columbia 
     Scholarship Fund for the fiscal year in which such 
     disbursement is made.
       (8) Availability.--Funds authorized to be appropriated 
     under this subtitle shall remain available until expended.
       (9) Uses.--Funds authorized to be appropriated under this 
     subtitle shall be used by the Corporation in a prudent and 
     financially responsible manner, solely for scholarships, 
     contracts, and administrative costs.
       (10) Authorization.--
       (A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the District of Columbia Scholarship Fund--
       (i) $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       (ii) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       (iii) $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through 
     2002.
       (B) Limitation.--Not more than 7.5 percent of the amount 
     appropriated to carry out this subtitle for any fiscal year 
     may be used by the Corporation for salaries and 
     administrative costs.
       (b) Organization and Management; Board of Directors.--
       (1) Board of directors; membership.--
       (A) In general.--The Corporation shall have a Board of 
     Directors (referred to in this subtitle as the ``Board''), 
     comprised of 7 members with 6 members of the Board appointed 
     by the President not later than 30 days after receipt of 
     nominations from the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and the majority leader of the Senate.
       (B) House nominations.--The President shall appoint 3 of 
     the members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives in consultation with 
     the minority leader of the House of Representatives.
       (C) Senate nominations.--The President shall appoint 3 
     members from a list of 9 individuals nominated by the 
     majority leader of the Senate in consultation with the 
     minority leader of the Senate.
       (D) Deadline.--The Speaker of the House of Representatives 
     and majority leader of the Senate shall submit their 
     nominations to the President not later than 30 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (E) Appointee of mayor.--The Mayor shall appoint 1 member 
     of the Board not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (F) Possible interim members.--If the President does not 
     appoint the 6 members of the Board in the 30-day period 
     described in subparagraph (A), then the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate 
     shall each appoint 2 members of the Board, and the Minority 
     Leader of the House of Representatives and the Minority 
     Leader of the Senate shall each appoint 1 of the Board, from 
     among the individuals nominated pursuant to subparagraphs (A) 
     and (B), as the case may be. The appointees under the 
     preceding sentence together with the appointee of the Mayor, 
     shall serve as an interim Board with all the powers and other 
     duties of the Board described in this subtitle, until the 
     President makes the appointments as described in this 
     paragraph.
       (2) Powers.--All powers of the Corporation shall vest in 
     and be exercised under the authority of the Board.
       (3) Elections.--Members of the Board annually shall elect 1 
     of the members of the Board to be chairperson of the Board.
       (4) Residency.--All members appointed to the Board shall be 
     residents of the District of Columbia at the time of 
     appointment and while serving on the Board.
       (5) Nonemployee.--No member of the Board may be an employee 
     of the United States Government or the District of Columbia 
     Government when appointed to or during tenure on the Board, 
     unless the individual is on a leave of absence from such a 
     position while serving on the Board.
       (6) Incorporation.--The members of the initial Board shall 
     serve as incorporators and shall take whatever steps are 
     necessary to establish the Corporation under the District of 
     Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-501 et 
     seq.).
       (7) General term.--The term of office of each member of the 
     Board shall be 5 years, except that any member appointed to 
     fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term 
     for which the predecessor was appointed shall be appointed 
     for the remainder of such term.
       (8) Consecutive term.--No member of the Board shall be 
     eligible to serve in excess of 2 consecutive terms of 5 years 
     each. A partial term shall be considered as 1 full term. Any 
     vacancy on the Board shall not affect the Board's power, but 
     shall be filled in a manner consistent with this subtitle.
       (9) No benefit.--No part of the income or assets of the 
     Corporation shall inure to the benefit of any Director, 
     officer, or employee of the Corporation, except as salary or 
     reasonable compensation for services.
       (10) Political activity.--The Corporation may not 
     contribute to or otherwise support any political party or 
     candidate for elective public office.
       (11) No officers or employees.--The members of the Board 
     shall not, by reason of such membership, be considered to be 
     officers or employees of the United States Government or of 
     the District of Columbia Government.
       (12) Stipends.--The members of the Board, while attending 
     meetings of the Board or while engaged in duties related to 
     such meetings or other activities of the Board pursuant to 
     this subtitle, shall be provided a stipend. Such stipend 
     shall be at the rate of $150 per day for which the member of 
     the Board is officially recorded as having worked, except 
     that no member may be paid a total stipend amount in any 
     calendar year in excess of $5,000.
       (c) Officers and Staff.--
       (1) Executive director.--The Corporation shall have an 
     Executive Director, and such

[[Page H8778]]

     other staff, as may be appointed by the Board for terms and 
     at rates of compensation, not to exceed level EG-16 of the 
     Educational Service of the District of Columbia, to be fixed 
     by the Board.
       (2) Staff.--With the approval of the Board, the Executive 
     Director may appoint and fix the salary of such additional 
     personnel as the Executive Director considers appropriate.
       (3) Annual rate.--No staff of the Corporation may be 
     compensated by the Corporation at an annual rate of pay 
     greater than the annual rate of pay of the Executive 
     Director.
       (4) Service.--All officers and employees of the Corporation 
     shall serve at the pleasure of the Board.
       (5) Qualification.--No political test or qualification may 
     be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other 
     personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, or 
     employees of the Corporation.
       (d) Powers of the Corporation.--
       (1) Generally.--The Corporation is authorized to obtain 
     grants from, and make contracts with, individuals and with 
     private, State, and Federal agencies, organizations, and 
     institutions.
       (2) Hiring authority.--The Corporation may hire, or accept 
     the voluntary services of, consultants, experts, advisory 
     boards, and panels to aid the Corporation in carrying out 
     this subtitle.
       (e) Financial Management and Records.--
       (1) Audits.--The financial statements of the Corporation 
     shall be--
       (A) maintained in accordance with generally accepted 
     accounting principles for nonprofit corporations; and
       (B) audited annually by independent certified public 
     accountants.
       (2) Report.--The report for each such audit shall be 
     included in the annual report to Congress required by section 
     350(c).
       (f) Responsibilities of the Corporation.--
       (1) Application schedule and procedures for 
     certification.--Not later than 60 days after the Board has 
     been appointed, the Corporation shall implement a schedule 
     and procedures for processing applications for awarding 
     student scholarships under this subtitle that includes a list 
     of certified eligible institutions, distribution of 
     information to parents and the general public (including 
     through a newspaper of general circulation), and deadlines 
     for steps in the scholarship application and award process.
       (2) Application.--An eligible institution that desires to 
     participate in the scholarship program under this subtitle 
     shall file an application with the Corporation for 
     certification for participation in the scholarship program 
     under this subtitle which shall--
       (A) demonstrate that the eligible institution has operated 
     with not less than 25 students during the 3 years preceding 
     the year for which the determination is made unless the 
     eligible institution is applying for certification as a new 
     eligible institution under subsection (c);
       (B) contain an assurance that the eligible institution will 
     comply with all applicable requirements of this subtitle;
       (C) contain an annual statement of the eligible 
     institution's budget; and
       (D) describe the eligible institution's proposed program, 
     including personnel qualifications and fees.
       (3) Certification.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after receipt of an 
     application in accordance with paragraph (2), the Corporation 
     shall certify an eligible institution to participate in the 
     scholarship program under this subtitle.
       (B) Continuation.--An eligible institution's certification 
     to participate in the scholarship program shall continue 
     unless such eligible institution's certification is revoked 
     in accordance with paragraph (5).
       (4) New eligible institution.--
       (A) In general.--An eligible institution that did not 
     operate with at least 25 students in the 3 years preceding 
     the year for which the determination is made may apply for a 
     1-year provisional certification to participate in the 
     scholarship program under this subtitle for a single year by 
     providing to the Corporation not later than July 1 of the 
     year preceding the year for which the determination is made--
       (i) a list of the eligible institution's board of 
     directors;
       (ii) letters of support from not less than 10 members of 
     the community served by such eligible institution;
       (iii) a business plan;
       (iv) an intended course of study;
       (v) assurances that the eligible institution will begin 
     operations with not less than 25 students;
       (vi) assurances that the eligible institution will comply 
     with all applicable requirements of this subtitle; and
       (vii) a statement that satisfies the requirements of 
     paragraphs (2) and (4) of subsection (a).
       (B) Certification.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of receipt of an application described in paragraph (2), the 
     Corporation shall certify in writing the eligible 
     institution's provisional certification to participate in the 
     scholarship program under this subtitle unless the 
     Corporation determines that good cause exists to deny 
     certification.
       (C) Renewal of provisional certification.--After receipt of 
     an application under subparagraph (A) from an eligible 
     institution that includes a statement of the eligible 
     institution's budget completed not earlier than 12 months 
     before the date such application is filed, the Corporation 
     shall renew an eligible institution's provisional 
     certification for the second and third years of the school's 
     participation in the scholarship program under this subtitle 
     unless the Corporation finds--
       (i) good cause to deny the renewal, including a finding of 
     a pattern of violation of requirements described in paragraph 
     (6)(A); or
       (ii) consistent failure of 25 percent or more of the 
     students receiving scholarships under this subtitle and 
     attending such school to make appropriate progress (as 
     determined by the Corporation) in academic achievement.
       (D) Denial of certification.--If provisional certification 
     or renewal of provisional certification under this paragraph 
     is denied, then the Corporation shall provide a written 
     explanation to the eligible institution of the reasons for 
     such denial.
       (5) Revocation of eligibility.--
       (A) In general.--The Corporation, after notice and hearing, 
     may revoke an eligible institution's certification to 
     participate in the scholarship program under this subtitle 
     for a year succeeding the year for which the determination is 
     made for--
       (i) good cause, including a finding of a pattern of 
     violation of program requirements described in paragraph 
     (6)(A); or
       (ii) consistent failure of 25 percent or more of the 
     students receiving scholarships under this subtitle and 
     attending such school to make appropriate progress (as 
     determined by the Corporation) in academic achievement.
       (B) Explanation.--If the certification of an eligible 
     institution is revoked, the Corporation shall provide a 
     written explanation of its decision to such eligible 
     institution and require a pro rata refund of the payments 
     received under this subtitle.
       (6) Participation requirements for eligible institutions.--
       (A) Requirements.--Each eligible institution participating 
     in the scholarship program under this subtitle shall--
       (i) provide to the Corporation not later than June 30 of 
     each year the most recent annual statement of the eligible 
     institution's budget; and
       (ii) charge a student that receives a scholarship under 
     this subtitle not more than the cost of tuition and mandatory 
     fees for, and transportation to attend, such eligible 
     institution as other students who are residents of the 
     District of Columbia and enrolled in such eligible 
     institution.
       (B) Compliance.--The Corporation may require documentation 
     of compliance with the requirements of subsection (a), but 
     neither the Corporation nor any governmental entity may 
     impose additional requirements upon an eligible institution 
     as a condition of participation in the scholarship program 
     under this subtitle.

     SEC. 343. SCHOLARSHIPS AUTHORIZED.

       (a) Eligible Students.--The Corporation is authorized to 
     award tuition scholarships under subsection (d)(1) and 
     enhanced achievement scholarships under subsection (d)(2) to 
     students in kindergarten through grade 12--
       (1) who are residents of the District of Columbia; and
       (2) whose family income does not exceed 185 percent of the 
     poverty line.
       (b) Scholarship Priority.--
       (1) First.--The Corporation shall first award scholarships 
     to students described in subsection (a) who--
       (A) are enrolled in a District of Columbia public school or 
     preparing to enter a District of Columbia kindergarten, 
     except that this subparagraph shall apply only for academic 
     years 1997, 1998, and 1999; or
       (B) have received a scholarship from the Corporation in the 
     year preceding the year for which the scholarship is awarded.
       (2) Second.--If funds remain for a fiscal year for awarding 
     scholarships after awarding scholarships under paragraph (1), 
     the Corporation shall award scholarships to students 
     described in subsection (a) who are not described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Random Selection.--Except as provided in subsections 
     (a) and (b), if there are more applications to participate in 
     the scholarship program than there are spaces available, a 
     student shall be admitted using a random selection process.
       (d) Use of Scholarship.--
       (1) Tuition scholarships.--A tuition scholarship may be 
     used for the payment of the cost of the tuition and mandatory 
     fees at a public, private, or independent school located 
     within the geographic boundaries of the District of Columbia 
     or the cost of the tuition and mandatory fees at a public, 
     private, or independent school located within Montgomery 
     County, Maryland; Prince Georges County, Maryland; Arlington 
     County, Virginia; Alexandria City, Virginia; Falls Church 
     City, Virginia; Fairfax City, Virginia; or Fairfax County, 
     Virginia.
       (2) Enhanced achievement scholarship.--An enhanced 
     achievement scholarship may be used only for the payment of 
     the costs of tuition and mandatory fees for, or 
     transportation to attend, a program of instruction provided 
     by an eligible institution which enhances student achievement 
     of the core curriculum and is operated outside of regular 
     school hours to supplement the regular school program.
       (e) Not School Aid.--A scholarship under this subtitle 
     shall be considered assistance to the student and shall not 
     be considered assistance to an eligible institution.

     SEC. 344. SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS.

       (a) Awards.--From the funds made available under this 
     subtitle, the Corporation

[[Page H8779]]

     shall award a scholarship to a student and make payments in 
     accordance with section 345 on behalf of such student to a 
     participating eligible institution chosen by the parent of 
     the student.
       (b) Notification.--Each eligible institution that accepts a 
     student who has received a scholarship under this subtitle 
     shall notify the Corporation not later than 10 days after--
       (1) the date that a student receiving a scholarship under 
     this subtitle is enrolled, of the name, address, and grade 
     level of such student;
       (2) the date of the withdrawal or expulsion of any student 
     receiving a scholarship under this subtitle, of the 
     withdrawal or expulsion; and
       (3) the date that a student receiving a scholarship under 
     this subtitle is refused admission, of the reasons for such a 
     refusal.
       (c) Tuition Scholarship.--
       (1) Equal to or below poverty line.--For a student whose 
     family income is equal to or below the poverty line, a 
     tuition scholarship may not exceed the lesser of--
       (A) the cost of tuition and mandatory fees for, and 
     transportation to attend, an eligible institution; or
       (B) $3,200 for fiscal year 1998, with such amount adjusted 
     in proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all 
     urban consumers published by the Department of Labor for each 
     of fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
       (2) Above poverty line.--For a student whose family income 
     is greater than the poverty line, but not more than 185 
     percent of the poverty line, a tuition scholarship may not 
     exceed the lesser of--
       (A) 75 percent of the cost of tuition and mandatory fees 
     for, and transportation to attend, an eligible institution; 
     or
       (B) $2,400 for fiscal year 1998, with such amount adjusted 
     in proportion to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all 
     urban consumers published by the Department of Labor for each 
     of fiscal years 1999 through 2002.
       (d) Enhanced Achievement Scholarship.--An enhanced 
     achievement scholarship may not exceed the lesser of--
       (1) the costs of tuition and mandatory fees for, or 
     transportation to attend, a program of instruction at an 
     eligible institution; or
       (2) $500 for 1998, with such amount adjusted in proportion 
     to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban 
     consumers published by the Department of Labor for each of 
     fiscal years 1999 through 2002.

     SEC. 345. SCHOLARSHIP PAYMENTS.

       (a) Disbursement of Scholarships.--The funds may be 
     distributed by check or another form of disbursement which is 
     issued by the Corporation and made payable directly to a 
     parent of a student participating in the scholarship program 
     under this subtitle. The parent may use such funds only as 
     payment for tuition, mandatory fees, and transportation costs 
     associated with attending or obtaining services from a 
     participating eligible institution.
       (b) Pro Rata Amounts for Student Withdrawal.--
       (1) Before payment.--If a student receiving a scholarship 
     withdraws or is expelled from an eligible institution before 
     a scholarship payment is made, the eligible institution shall 
     receive a pro rata payment based on the amount of the 
     scholarship and the number of days the student was enrolled 
     in the eligible institution.
       (2) After payment.--If a student receiving a scholarship 
     withdraws or is expelled after a scholarship payment is made, 
     the eligible institution shall refund to the Corporation on a 
     pro rata basis the proportion of any scholarship payment 
     received for the remaining days of the school year. Such 
     refund shall occur not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the withdrawal or expulsion of the student.

     SEC. 346. CIVIL RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--An eligible institution participating in 
     the scholarship program under this subtitle shall not engage 
     in any practice that discriminates on the basis of race, 
     color, national origin, or sex.
       (b) Exception.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     prevent a parent from choosing or an eligible institution 
     from offering, a single-sex school, class, or activity.
       (c) Revocation.--Notwithstanding section 342(f), if the 
     Corporation determines that an eligible institution 
     participating in the scholarship program under this title is 
     in violation of any of the laws listed in subsection (a), 
     then the Corporation shall revoke such eligible institution's 
     certification to participate in the program.

     SEC. 347. CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.

       Nothing in this subtitle shall affect the rights of 
     students, or the obligations of the District of Columbia 
     public schools, under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).

     SEC. 348. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     bar any eligible institution which is operated, supervised, 
     or controlled by, or in connection with, a religious 
     organization from limiting employment, or admission to, or 
     giving preference to persons of the same religion as is 
     determined by such institution to promote the religious 
     purpose for which it is established or maintained.
       (b) Sectarian Purposes.--Nothing in this Act shall preclude 
     the use of funds authorized under this Act for sectarian 
     educational purposes or to require an eligible institution to 
     remove religious art, icons, scripture, or other symbols.

      SEC. 349. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--An eligible institution participating in 
     the scholarship program under this subtitle shall report not 
     later than July 30 of each year in a manner prescribed by the 
     Corporation, the following data:
       (1) Student achievement in the eligible institution's 
     programs.
       (2) Grade advancement for scholarship students.
       (3) Disciplinary actions taken with respect to scholarship 
     students.
       (4) Graduation, college admission test scores, and college 
     admission rates, if applicable for scholarship students.
       (5) Types and amounts of parental involvement required for 
     all families of scholarship students.
       (6) Student attendance for scholarship and nonscholarship 
     students.
       (7) General information on curriculum, programs, 
     facilities, credentials of personnel, and disciplinary rules 
     at the eligible institution.
       (8) Number of scholarship students enrolled.
       (9) Such other information as may be required by the 
     Corporation for program appraisal.
       (b) Confidentiality.--No personal identifiers may be used 
     in such report, except that the Corporation may request such 
     personal identifiers solely for the purpose of verification.

      SEC. 350. PROGRAM APPRAISAL.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall enter 
     into a contract, with an evaluating agency that has 
     demonstrated experience in conducting evaluations, for an 
     independent evaluation of the scholarship program under this 
     subtitle, including--
       (1) a comparison of test scores between scholarship 
     students and District of Columbia public school students of 
     similar backgrounds, taking into account the students' 
     academic achievement at the time of the award of their 
     scholarships and the students' family income level;
       (2) a comparison of graduation rates between scholarship 
     students and District of Columbia public school students of 
     similar backgrounds, taking into account the students' 
     academic achievement at the time of the award of their 
     scholarships and the students' family income level;
       (3) the satisfaction of parents of scholarship students 
     with the scholarship program; and
       (4) the impact of the scholarship program on the District 
     of Columbia public schools, including changes in the public 
     school enrollment, and any improvement in the academic 
     performance of the public schools.
       (b) Public Review of Data.--All data gathered in the course 
     of the study described in subsection (a) shall be made 
     available to the public upon request except that no personal 
     identifiers shall be made public.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than September 1 of each 
     year, the Corporation shall submit a progress report on the 
     scholarship program to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress. Such report shall include a review of how 
     scholarship funds were expended, including the initial 
     academic achievement levels of students who have participated 
     in the scholarship program.
       (d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     for the study described in subsection (a), $250,000, which 
     shall remain available until expended.

      SEC. 351. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--The United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction in any action 
     challenging the scholarship program under this subtitle and 
     shall provide expedited review.
       (b) Appeal to Supreme Court.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any order of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia which is issued pursuant 
     to an action brought under subsection (a) shall be reviewable 
     by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.

      SEC. 352. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This subtitle shall be effective for each of the fiscal 
     years 1998 through 2002.
                  Subtitle C--Other Education Reforms

     SEC. 361. REDUCTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF.

       At any time after June 30, 1998, the total number of full-
     time-equivalent employees of the District of Columbia Public 
     Schools whose principal duty is not classroom instruction may 
     not exceed the number of such full-time-equivalent employees 
     as of September 30, 1997, reduced by 200.

     SEC. 362. DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR TEACHERS.

       The District of Columbia Public Schools shall develop and 
     implement performance benchmarks for teachers, based on the 
     ability of students to improve by at least one grade level 
     each year in performance on standardized tests, and shall 
     establish incentives to encourage teachers to meet such 
     benchmarks.

     SEC. 363. PERMITTING WAIVER OF CERTAIN CONTRACTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND 
                   REPAIR.

       In carrying out any construction or repair project for the 
     District of Columbia Public Schools, the Contracting Officer 
     for the District of Columbia Public Schools may waive any 
     statutory requirements referred to under the headings `Davis-
     Bacon Act' and `Copeland Act' in the document entitled

[[Page H8780]]

     ``District of Columbia Public Schools Standard Contract 
     Provisions'' (as such document was in effect on November 2, 
     1995 and including any revisions or modifications to such 
     document) published by the District of Columbia public 
     schools for use with construction or maintenance projects, 
     except that nothing in this section may be construed to 
     permit the waiver of any requirements under Executive Order 
     11246 or other civil rights standards.

     SEC. 364. REPEAL OF TAX EXEMPTION FOR LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of any 
     Federally-granted charter or any other provision of law, the 
     real property of any labor organization located in the 
     District of Columbia shall be subject to taxation by the 
     District of Columbia in the same manner as any similar 
     organization.
       (b) Labor Organization Defined.--In subsection (a), the 
     term ``labor organization'' means any organization of any 
     kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or 
     plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the 
     purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers 
     concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, 
     hours of employment, or conditions of work.

     SEC. 365. TREATMENT OF SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL AS AT-WILL 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation 
     (including any law or regulation providing for collective 
     bargaining or the enforcement of any collective bargaining 
     agreement), all supervisory personnel of the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools shall be appointed by, shall serve at 
     the pleasure of, and shall act under the direction and 
     control of the Emergency Transitional Education Board of 
     Trustees, and shall be considered at-will employees not 
     covered by the District of Columbia Government Comprehensive 
     Merit Personnel Act of 1978.

     SEC. 366. DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLED.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, and not later than 30 days after the beginning of 
     each semester which begins after such date, the District of 
     Columbia Auditor shall submit a report to Congress, the 
     Mayor, the Council, the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority providing 
     the most recent information available on the number of 
     students enrolled in the District of Columbia Public Schools 
     and the average daily attendance of such students.

     SEC. 367. BUDGETING ON SCHOOL-BY-SCHOOL BASIS.

       (a) Preparation of Initial Budgets.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools shall prepare and submit to Congress 
     a budget for each public elementary and secondary school for 
     fiscal year 1998 which describes the amount expected to be 
     expended with respect to the school for salaries, capital, 
     and other appropriate categories of expenditures.
       (b) Use of Budgets for Future Aggregate Budget.--The 
     District of Columbia Public Schools shall use the budgets 
     prepared for individual schools under subsection (a) to 
     prepare the overall budget for the Schools for fiscal year 
     1999.

     SEC. 368. REQUIRING PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR INDIVIDUALS 
                   ATTENDING SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL CHILD CARE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       None of the funds made available in this Act or any other 
     Act may be used by the District of Columbia Public Schools in 
     fiscal year 1998 or any succeeding fiscal year to provide 
     classroom instruction or child care services to any minor 
     whose parent or guardian does not supply the Schools with 
     proof of the State of the minor's residence.

     SEC. 369. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SCHOOL OF LAW.

       (a) Requiring Full Accreditation.--
       (1) In general.--If the District of Columbia School of Law 
     is not fully, unconditionally accredited by the American Bar 
     Association as of at its midyear meeting in February 1998 
     none of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act 
     may be expended for or on behalf of the School except for 
     purposes of providing assistance to assist students enrolled 
     at the School as of such date who are residents of the 
     District of Columbia in paying the tuition for enrollment at 
     other law schools in the Washington Metropolitan Area, in 
     accordance with a plan submitted to Congress.
       (2) Restrictions on use of funds prior to accreditation.--
     None of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act 
     may be used by or on behalf of the District of Columbia 
     School of Law for recruiting or capital projects until the 
     School is fully, unconditionally accredited by the American 
     Bar Association.
       (b) No Other Source of Funding Permitted.--None of the 
     funds made available in this Act or any other Act for the use 
     of any entity (including the University of the District of 
     Columbia) other than the District of Columbia School of Law 
     may be transferred to, made available for, or expended for or 
     on behalf of the District of Columbia School of Law.

     SEC. 370. WAIVER OF LIABILITY IN PRO BONO ARRANGEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any rule or regulation--
       (1) any person who voluntarily provides goods or services 
     to or on behalf of the District of Columbia Public Schools 
     without the expectation of receiving or intending to receive 
     compensation shall be immune from civil liability, both 
     personally and professionally, for any act or omission 
     occurring in the course of providing such goods or services 
     (except as provided in subsection (b)); and
       (2) the District of Columbia (including the District of 
     Columbia Public Schools) shall be immune from civil liability 
     for any act or omission of any person voluntarily providing 
     goods or services to or on behalf of the District of Columbia 
     Public Schools.
       (b) Exception for Intentional Acts or Acts of Gross 
     Negligence.--Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply with respect 
     to any person if the act or omission involved--
       (1) constitutes gross negligence;
       (2) constitutes an intentional tort; or
       (3) is criminal in nature.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to the provision of goods and services occurring during 
     fiscal year 1998 or any succeeding fiscal year.
       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations, Medical Liability Reform, and Education 
     Reform Act of 1998''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No further amendment shall be in order 
except those printed in House Report 105-315, which may be considered 
only in the order specified, may be offered only by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debated for the time 
specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
specified in the report and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any proposed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part II of 
House Report 105-315.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sabo

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sabo:
       Page 173, strike line 21 and all that follows through page 
     174, line 9 (and redesignate the succeeding sections 
     accordingly).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 264, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and a Member opposed, each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, over 65 years ago, Davis-Bacon passed the Congress, 
named after a Republican Member of the House and a Republican Secretary 
of Labor. It has served good public policy for 65 years. Some want to 
change it. I would simply say to those who want to change it, go 
through the committees, bring it to the floor and let us debate it on 
its merits. We cannot do that in 10 minutes today.
  What does this bill do? It suspends Davis-Bacon in the District of 
Columbia on certain construction contracts subject to the desire of the 
contracting officer. Let me say that again. We are going to change 65 
years of public policy in this country subject to the desires and whims 
of a contracting officer in the District of Columbia; not any elected 
body, not even the control board, but a contracting officer. What a 
horrendous way to run this place. This provision does not belong in 
this bill. Let us take it out.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup].
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, today there are several Washington, DC 
schools that are still closed due to construction problems. Earlier 
this year there were many that were delayed most of September because 
of construction problems. We need to not prescribe Davis-Bacon because 
it is expensive and it is an accounting nightmare. These schools need 
to stretch their construction money so that they can deal with the 
construction problems they have.
  This is not about fair labor rates. The fact is, this is about taking 
advantage of working Americans and the

[[Page H8781]]

taxes they pay all across this country to subsidize labor rates to 
extraordinarily high levels. My taxpayers in Kentucky are paid far less 
than the wages we would prescribe. We have factory workers, policemen, 
teachers, gas station attendants, hair stylists, lots of people that go 
to work every day, and pay their taxes. We are asking them to subsidize 
wages at much higher rates. Their Federal tax money should not be 
wasted on these extraordinarily high rates. We should have the 
Government able to bid for these jobs just like we do everything else 
the Government purchases.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Quinn].
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon in support of the Sabo 
amendment. As we consider this amendment this afternoon I want to point 
out to my colleagues three quick points.
  First of all, this is not the way that we should be altering a very 
significant Federal law. If we are interested in looking into the 
effects of Davis-Bacon on construction costs, we should conduct 
hearings, we should have a fair and open debate and then we should do 
it the right way and not legislate on appropriations.
  Second, Davis-Bacon simply ensures that wages and working conditions 
at a given locality are observed on federally funded construction 
programs. It does not require a payment of a minimum wage.
  Thirdly, if the prevailing wage laws are repealed, it would in 
essence allow contractors to use the vast procurement power of the 
Federal Government to depress wages of construction workers and then 
cut those wages to win the Federal projects that they desire.
  In closing, I would ask our colleagues to protect construction 
workers this afternoon. Do not circumvent the legislative process by 
legislating through appropriations, and vote ``yes'' on the Sabo 
amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this motion to strike the 
Davis-Bacon waiver. This is not a repeal of Davis-Bacon. This is a 
waiver.
  Last March, TV ads were aired in Wichita. Let me quote them. They 
said: ``My son's school is literally falling apart, plaster is falling 
from the ceiling. It is just not safe. Millions of kids go to school 
each day in buildings that are aging, crumbling, even unsafe, but 
instead of spending our money to fix America's schools, Washington 
gives it away. Call Congressman Tiahrt, tell him to protect our kids, 
not special interests.'' Paid for by the AFL-CIO.
  This very provision would strike the waiver for Davis-Bacon. This 
means that only union workers can work on the schools in the District 
of Columbia. Americans all know that this will be limiting competition, 
that it will be driving up repair costs, that it will be hurting the 
children in the District of Columbia, at the expense of the children, 
so that we could favor special interests.
  It will protect special interests, special interests of the AFL-CIO, 
of the labor unions, at the cost of better schools for District of 
Columbia children. Exactly opposite of what the ad that was run by the 
AFL-CIO. Yet the ads which appeared in my district were paid for by the 
same group, the AFL-CIO.
  They are asking to protect, asking us to protect special interests 
instead of our children here in the District of Columbia. Let us not 
protect the special interests. As the ad says, instead of spending our 
money to fix American schools, let us protect the kids and not special 
interests. Let us use this money more efficiently by waiving the Davis-
Bacon provisions, by protecting our children, by giving them better 
schools, and do so by voting against the Sabo provision and by 
continuing to vote for this bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
Repealing the Davis-Bacon law for D.C. school construction projects 
will not improve the district's crumbling schools. It will discriminate 
against the District's construction workers. These workers deserve to 
earn a decent wage. In fact, a recent study found that school 
construction costs were actually lower in those States governed by 
State Davis-Bacon laws.
  The Federal Government has a responsibility to help our local 
communities address the crisis of crumbling schools, but not by denying 
hard-working construction workers and their families a decent wage. The 
Members who support this Davis-Bacon repeal say they want to help the 
District's crumbling schools. If they really care about crumbling 
schools, support my bill that would provide $5 billion nationwide and 
$15 million to rebuild the schools in the D.C. school district.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, we have a simple choice today. We can vote 
to support schools and public education or we can vote to support 
corruption and Washington union bosses.
  Let there be no mistake about this amendment. This is an amendment 
that protects Davis-Bacon, which is a giveaway to Washington union 
bosses. Precious education dollars are being siphoned off from 
classrooms, from supplies and other needed repairs. They cannot even 
open the schools in Washington. All because big labor wants to get 
their pound of flesh.
  I have got to tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, essentially Davis-
Bacon requirements result in wasted dollars, reduced funds for students 
and fewer job opportunities. I do not see any reason why we should not 
give local officials the option to waive these onerous requirements. A 
vote for this amendment is a vote against the children of Washington, 
DC and a vote to pad the pockets of Washington union bosses.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon is one of the finest laws we have 
on the books. Davis and Bacon were both leading Republicans in the 
Congress of 1931. We faced the same thing now that they faced then, 
people coming in undercutting the prevailing wage rate.
  That is what it is all about. It is about fairness. It is about 
helping our neighbors who are electricians and plumbers and masons and 
ironworkers. That is what it is about. We should not tamper with Davis-
Bacon. It is a good law. Let us keep it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this Sabo amendment will save the District 
of Columbia from being another experimental ground for a bad piece of 
legislation. Davis-Bacon saves money. There is a study by Peter 
Phillips, a professor of the University of Utah, which showed that 
Davis-Bacon actually saves money on school construction.
  Davis-Bacon has many other benefits. Davis-Bacon provides programs 
for apprentices and training in a way that no other construction 
programs do. Davis-Bacon has been around for a long time. It operates 
to the benefit of construction industry workers.
  I submit this for the Record to answer the lies about Davis-Bacon:

  District of Columbia Appropriations Bill Davis-Bacon Act Provisions

       Section 363 of the D.C. Appropriations bill would allow the 
     D.C. Contracting Officer for Public Schools to waive Davis-
     Bacon prevailing wages for workers on school construction and 
     repair projects. Despite a 1995 Congressional Budget Office 
     scoring indicating that repealing Davis-Bacon would not 
     produce sizable savings, opponents continue to assert that if 
     you do away with labor protections on school construction 
     projects, the taxpayer will save money on construction costs.
       Repealing or waiving Davis-Bacon will not save money on 
     school construction. Peter Phillips, a professor in the 
     university of Utah Economics Department has prepared a report 
     for the legislative Education Study Committee of the New 
     Mexico State Legislature which tests the proposition that 
     eliminating state prevailing wage laws will lower school 
     construction costs.
       For the period of 1992-1994, he compares the average square 
     foot cost of construction for elementary, middle and high 
     schools in 9

[[Page H8782]]

     Intermountain and Southwestern states--5 states with 
     prevailing wage laws (New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming 
     and Nevada) to 4 states without prevailing wage laws (Utah, 
     Colorado and Idaho). These results show that if anything, 
     square foot construction costs are lower in states with 
     prevailing wage laws to those without these laws: for 
     elementary schools, average square foot new construction 
     costs are $67 in the states with prevailing wage laws and $73 
     per square foot in the 4 states without prevailing wage 
     laws--a real difference of $6; the 76 middle schools built in 
     the prevailing wage law states cost an average of $66 per 
     square foot while the 28 middle schools built in the 4 states 
     without prevailing wage laws cost an average of $77 per 
     square foot; and similarly, the 31 high schools built in the 
     prevailing wage law states cost an average $70 while the 22 
     schools in states without prevailing wage laws cost an 
     average of $81.
       Furthermore, more new public construction took place in the 
     5 states with state prevailing wage law compared to the 4 
     states without prevailing wage laws during the period under 
     study (1992-1994).
       There will be long-run cost to the construction industry. 
     The basic conclusion of this study is that there is no 
     evidence to suggest that the repeal of the state's prevailing 
     wage law would save substantial costs in the construction of 
     public schools. Lower wage rates for construction workers 
     will not reduce costs, particularly in the long run. Peter 
     Phillips finds that prevailing wage laws encourage the 
     apprenticeship and training programs that have created the 
     skilled construction workforce that has resulted in higher 
     labor productivity. In the long run, repealing state 
     prevailing wage laws will result in a migration of trained 
     workers out of construction and a decline in the training of 
     new construction workers leading to lower productivity, 
     thereby canceling out any savings from lower wages. It is 
     clear that without Davis-Bacon the use of low-wage untrained 
     workers will degrade the quality of public construction.
       Section 363 will discriminate against D.C. construction 
     workers. Allowing prevailing wages to be waived on school 
     construction and repair projects in D.C. construction workers 
     who are largely minority. Workers on school construction 
     projects in Maryland, for example, will continue to be paid 
     the prevailing wage. The inequity will also invite fly-by-
     night contractors from other areas to come into D.C., using 
     lowered wage for construction workers to ``low-ball'' school 
     construction contracts in the District.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, since I have become a Member of Congress, 
and I am sure well before that, some in Congress have called for the 
repeal of Davis-Bacon. I have opposed these efforts and will continue 
to oppose any weakening of this important law.
  As an operator of a small business, with unionized workers, for years 
before I entered public life, I learned that in general you truly do 
get what you pay for. It is not as simple as some claim, that there 
would be a major cost saving by eliminating this requirement. Studies 
have been shown that prove differently.
  I support Davis-Bacon. I will vote for the gentleman's amendment, and 
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Minnesota, and I support Davis-Bacon.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, a 65-year policy should not be reversed by the choice 
of a contracting officer in the District of Columbia. Davis-Bacon is 
not about union bosses; it is about being sure that people who build 
our buildings and construct our roads are paid a fair price and we get 
quality in return.
  Mr. Chairman, let us remove this inappropriate rider from this bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and I agree that we need more than 5 minutes to 
discuss this issue. It is a very important issue.
  Sixty-five years is too long. That is what this House is about, 
taking antiquated wasteful spending out. If we look at Florida, 
Kentucky, Ohio, Montgomery, Preston County, all of them have saved 
money. The one institution of Utah, the study was paid for by the 
unions. All other studies show that Davis-Bacon inflates costs.
  A poll, this is Washington, DC, 65 percent support the bill of local 
option, Davis-Bacon, to a take it out. Sixty percent of Democrats 
agree. Sixty-eight percent agree that it is more important to create 
entry level jobs than to have Davis-Bacon. Seventy-two percent agree 
that the law should be changed to permit volunteers to take part in 
construction and repair work, which Davis-Bacon prevents.
  We are trying to get the most amount of money to fix schools that are 
86 years old. It is a sad day, Mr. Chairman, when special interests, 
when we talk about campaign finance reform, stops good legislation.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, the Early Childhood, Youth, and Families 
Subcommittee urges you to support an important initiative to help 
children in the District of Columbia. Just yesterday, a District school 
was ordered closed by the D.C. fire marshal because of roof leaks--the 
second school violation in 2 days.
  Education dollars should not have to be diverted away from needed 
facility repairs or away from the classroom because of outdated Federal 
laws that inflate the cost of school construction. Local school 
districts need the flexibility to appropriately spend their educational 
resources. Valuable funds should not have to go toward inflated 
construction costs, when they could instead go toward additional 
repairs and facility improvements, books, computers, and other 
educational services that actually improve classroom learning and 
benefit school children.
  The Appropriations Committee has recognized this and has included a 
voluntary waiver of Davis-Bacon for school construction in Washington, 
DC, in the fiscal year 1998 District of Columbia appropriations bill. 
By allowing District facility contracting officers the opportunity to 
waive Davis-Bacon when appropriate for school projects, the District 
could gain more construction for the dollar and be able to allocate 
more resources to better meet students' needs.
  Additionally, Davis-Bacon Act regulations prevent entry-level workers 
from gaining employment and on-the-job-training on federally funded 
projects. Because the regulations do not allow the use of helpers, 
contractors are limited in employing local, low-skilled workers. Thus, 
lifting Davis-Bacon requirements would not only stretch educational 
dollars farther, it would also help provide job opportunities for 
entry-level workers in the District to gain valuable job experience in 
their community.
  Congress can take an important step to help local school children by 
allowing D.C. officials the authority to choose to waive restrictive 
Davis-Bacon Act requirements for school construction and repairs. It 
will provide the local control necessary to award contracts based on 
quality and cost, guarantee more construction for the dollar, and help 
ensure Federal funds are not diverted away from the classroom.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 188, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 511]

                               AYES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood

[[Page H8783]]


     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--188

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Berman
     Brown (FL)
     Chambliss
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Lewis (KY)
     Schiff
     Solomon

                              {time}  1437

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Berman for, with Mr. Chambliss against.

  Messrs. BARRETT of Nebraska, PORTMAN, HERGER, and HASTERT changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 2 printed in part II of House Report 105-315.


 Amendment No. 2 in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Moran of 
                                Virginia

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment No. 2 in the nature of a substitute offered by 
     Mr. Moran of Virginia:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     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, 1998, 
     and for other purposes, namely:

                             FEDERAL FUNDS

                 Federal Payment for Management Reform

       For payment to the District of Columbia, as authorized by 
     section 11103(c) of the National Capital Revitalization and 
     Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, 
     $8,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 1999, 
     which shall be deposited into an escrow account of the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, pursuant to section 205 of Public Law 
     104-8 (109 Stat. 131), and shall be disbursed from such 
     escrow account pursuant to the instructions of the Authority 
     only for a program of management reform pursuant to sections 
     11101-11106 of the District of Columbia Management Reform Act 
     of 1997, Public Law 105-33.

     Federal Contribution to the Operations of the Nation's Capital

       For a Federal contribution to the District of Columbia 
     toward the costs of the operation of the government of the 
     District of Columbia, $190,000,000: Provided, That these 
     funds may be used by the District of Columbia for the costs 
     of advances to the District government as authorized by 
     section 11402 of the National Capital Revitalization and 
     Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33: 
     Provided further, That not less than $30,000,000 shall be 
     used by the District of Columbia to repay the accumulated 
     general fund deficit.

                     Metropolitan Police Department

       For the Metropolitan Police Department, $5,400,000, for a 5 
     percent pay increase for sworn officers who perform primarily 
     nonadministrative public safety services and are certified by 
     the Chief of Police as having met the minimum ``Basic 
     Certificate'' standards transmitted by the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority to Congress by letter dated May 19, 1997, or (if 
     applicable) the minimum standards under any physical fitness 
     and performance standards developed by the Department in 
     consultation with the Authority.

             Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department

       For the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, 
     $2,600,000, for a 5 percent pay increase for uniformed fire 
     fighters.

    Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee 
                               Operations

       For payment to the District of Columbia Corrections 
     Trustee, $169,000,000 for the administration and operation of 
     correctional facilities, as authorized by section 11202 of 
     the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
     Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33.

  Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee for 
            Correctional Facilities, Construction and Repair

       For payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee 
     for Correctional Facilities, $302,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which not less than $294,900,000 
     is available for transfer to the Federal Prison System, as 
     authorized by section 11202 of the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, 
     Public Law 105-33.

           Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, $116,000,000, 
     for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, to 
     be available only for obligation by the Joint Committee on 
     Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia for 
     operation of the District of Columbia Courts, of which not to 
     exceed $750,000 shall be available for establishment and 
     operations of the District of Columbia Truth in Sentencing 
     Commission as authorized by section 11211 of the National 
     Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 
     1997, Public Law 105-33.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for an 
     additional amount, $30,000,000, for the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts, to be available only for 
     obligation by the Offender Supervision Trustee, for Pretrial 
     Services, Defense Services, Parole, Adult Probation, and 
     administrative operating costs of the Office of the Offender 
     Supervision Trustee, of which not to exceed $800,000 shall be 
     transferred to the United States Parole Commission to 
     implement section 11231 of the National Capital 
     Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997.

                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

                          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, $105,177,000 (including 
     $84,316,000, from local funds, $14,013,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $6,848,000 from other funds): Provided, That not 
     to exceed $2,500 for the Mayor, $2,500 for the Chairman of 
     the Council of the District of Columbia, and $2,500 for the 
     City Administrator shall be available from this appropriation 
     for official purposes: Provided further,

[[Page H8784]]

     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 Columbia shall identify the 
     sources of funding for Admission to Statehood from its own 
     locally-generated revenues: Provided further, That $240,000 
     shall be available for citywide special elections: Provided 
     further, That all employees permanently assigned to work in 
     the Office of the Mayor shall be paid from funds allocated to 
     the Office of the Mayor.

                  Economic Development and Regulation

       Economic development and regulation, $120,072,000 
     (including $40,377,000 from local funds, $42,065,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $37,630,000 from other funds), together 
     with $12,000,000 collected in the form of BID tax revenue 
     collected by the District of Columbia on behalf of business 
     improvement districts pursuant to the Business Improvement 
     Districts Act of 1996, effective May 29, 1996 (D.C. Law 11-
     134; D.C. Code, sec. 1-2271 et seq.), and the Business 
     Improvement Districts Temporary Amendment Act of 1997 (Bill 
     12-230).

                       Public Safety and Justice

       Public safety and justice, including purchase or lease 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, $529,739,000 (including $510,326,000 
     from local funds, $13,519,000 from Federal funds, and 
     $5,894,000 from other funds): Provided, That the Metropolitan 
     Police Department is authorized to replace not to exceed 25 
     passenger-carrying vehicles and the Department of Fire and 
     Emergency Medical Services of the District of Columbia is 
     authorized to replace not to exceed five passenger-carrying 
     vehicles annually whenever the cost of repair to any damaged 
     vehicle exceeds three-fourths of the cost of the replacement: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 shall be 
     available from this appropriation for the Chief of Police for 
     the prevention and detection of crime: Provided further, That 
     the Metropolitan Police Department shall provide quarterly 
     reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and 
     Senate on efforts to increase efficiency and improve the 
     professionalism in the department: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order 
     86-45, issued March 18, 1986, the Metropolitan Police 
     Department's delegated small purchase authority shall be 
     $500,000: Provided further, That the District of Columbia 
     government may not require the Metropolitan Police Department 
     to submit to any other procurement review process, or to 
     obtain the approval of or be restricted in any manner by any 
     official or employee of the District of Columbia government, 
     for purchases that do not exceed $500,000: Provided further, 
     That the 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: Provided further, That the Metropolitan 
     Police Department is authorized to maintain 3,800 sworn 
     officers, with leave for a 50 officer attrition: Provided 
     further, That no more than 15 members of the Metropolitan 
     Police Department shall be detailed or assigned to the 
     Executive Protection Unit, until the Chief of Police submits 
     a recommendation to the Council for its review: Provided 
     further, That $100,000 shall be available for inmates 
     released on medical and geriatric parole: Provided further, 
     That not less than $2,254,754 shall be available to support a 
     pay raise for uniformed firefighters, when authorized by the 
     District of Columbia Council and the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     which funding will be made available as savings achieved 
     through actions within the appropriated budget: Provided 
     further, That, commencing on December 31, 1997, the 
     Metropolitan Police Department shall provide to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight of the House of Representatives, the Committee 
     on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and quarterly 
     reports on the status of crime reduction in each of the 83 
     police service areas established throughout the District 
     of Columbia.

                        Public Education System

       Public education system, including the development of 
     national defense education programs, $672,444,000 (including 
     $530,197,000 from local funds, $112,806,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $29,441,000 from other funds), to be allocated as 
     follows: $564,129,000 (including $460,143,000 from local 
     funds, $98,491,000 from Federal funds, and $5,495,000 from 
     other funds), for the public schools of the District of 
     Columbia; $1,235,000 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, 1998, 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); $74,087,000 (including $37,791,000 from local 
     funds, $12,804,000 from Federal funds, and $23,492,000 from 
     other funds) for the University of the District of Columbia; 
     $22,036,000 (including $20,424,000 from local funds, 
     $1,158,000 from Federal funds, and $454,000 from other funds) 
     for the Public Library; $2,057,000 (including $1,704,000 from 
     local funds and $353,000 from Federal funds) for the 
     Commission on the Arts and Humanities: Provided further, 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 $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, 1998, 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, $1,718,939,000 (including 
     $789,350,000 from local funds, $886,702,000 from Federal 
     funds, and $42,887,000 from other funds): Provided, That 
     $21,089,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until 
     expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia 
     employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That a 
     peer review committee shall be established to review medical 
     payments and the type of service received by a disability 
     compensation claimant: 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 
     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 leasing of passenger-carrying vehicles $241,934,000 
     (including $227,983,000 from local funds, $3,350,000 from 
     Federal funds, and $10,601,000 from other funds): Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall not be available for collecting 
     ashes or miscellaneous refuse from hotels and places of 
     business: Provided further, That $3,000,000 shall be 
     available for the lease financing, operation, and maintenance 
     of two mechanical street sweepers, one flusher truck, five 
     packer trucks, one front-end loader, and various public 
     litter containers: Provided further, That $2,400,000 shall be 
     available for recycling activities.

                        Financing and Other Uses

       Financing and other uses, $454,773,000 (including for 
     payment to the Washington Convention Center, $5,400,000 from 
     local funds; 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), and 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,

[[Page H8785]]

     $384,430,000 from local funds; for the purpose of eliminating 
     the $331,589,000 general fund accumulated deficit as of 
     September 30, 1990, $39,020,000 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); for payment of interest 
     on short-term borrowing, $12,000,000 from local funds; for 
     lease payments in accordance with the Certificates of 
     Participation involving the land site underlying the 
     building located at One Judiciary Square, $7,923,000 from 
     local funds; for human resources development, including 
     costs of increased employee training, administrative 
     reforms, and an executive compensation system, $6,000,000 
     from local funds); for equipment leases, the Mayor may 
     finance $13,127,000 of equipment cost, plus cost of 
     issuance not to exceed two percent of the par amount being 
     financed on a lease purchase basis with a maturity not to 
     exceed five years: Provided, That $75,000 is allocated to 
     the Department of Corrections, $8,000,000 for the Public 
     Schools, $50,000 for the Public Library, $260,000 for the 
     Department of Human Services, $244,000 for the Department 
     of Recreation and Parks, and $4,498,000 for the Department 
     of Public Works.

                            ENTERPRISE FUNDS

                       Enterprise and Other Uses

       Enterprises and other uses, $15,725,000 (including 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.), 
     $2,467,000 (including $2,135,000 from local funds and 
     $332,000 from other funds); for the Public Service 
     Commission, $4,547,000 (including $4,250,000 from local 
     funds, $117,000 from Federal funds, and $180,000 from other 
     funds), for the Office of the People's Counsel, $2,428,000 
     from local funds; for the Office of Banking and Financial 
     Institutions, $600,000 (including $100,000 from local funds 
     and $500,000 from other funds); for the Department of 
     Insurance and Securities Regulation, $5,683,000 from other 
     funds.

         Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington Aqueduct

       For the Water and Sewer Authority and the Washington 
     Aqueduct, $297,310,000 from other funds (including 
     $263,425,000 for the Water and Sewer Authority and 
     $33,885,000 for the Washington Aqueduct) of which $41,423,000 
     shall be apportioned and payable to the District's debt 
     service fund for repayment of loans and interest incurred for 
     capital improvement projects.

               Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board

       For the Lottery and Charitable Games Control Board, 
     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.), $213,500,000: 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.

                             Starplex Fund

       For the Starplex Fund, $5,936,000 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, $97,019,000, of which $44,335,000 
     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 1979, 
     approved November 17, 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Code, sec. 1-
     711), $16,762,000 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 itemized 
     accounting of the planned use of appropriated funds in time 
     for each annual budget submission and the actual use of such 
     funds in time for each annual audited financial report.

              Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund

       For the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund, 
     $46,400,000, 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), $3,220,000.

                             CAPITAL OUTLAY

       For construction projects, $269,330,000 (including 
     $31,100,000 for the highway trust fund, $105,485,000 from 
     local funds, and $132,745,000 in Federal funds), 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, 1999, 
     except authorizations for projects as to which funds have 
     been obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30, 
     1999: Provided further, That upon expiration of any such 
     project authorization the funds provided herein for the 
     project shall lapse.

                  DEFICIT REDUCTION AND REVITALIZATION

       For deficit reduction and revitalization, $201,090,000, to 
     be deposited into an escrow account held by the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority (Authority), which shall allocate the funds to the 
     Mayor, or such other District official as the Authority may 
     deem appropriate, at such intervals and in accordance with 
     such terms and conditions as the Authority considers 
     appropriate: Provided, That these funds shall only be used 
     for reduction of the accumulated general fund deficit; 
     capital expenditures, including debt service; and management 
     and productivity improvements, as allocated by the Authority: 
     Provided further, That no funds may be obligated until a plan 
     for their use is approved by the Authority: Provided further, 
     That the Authority shall inform the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives, 
     the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and the 
     Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House of 
     Representatives of the approved plans.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Section 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

[[Page H8786]]

     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, 1998 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 1997 shall be 
     deemed to be the rate of pay payable for that position for 
     September 30, 1997.
       (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 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, 1998, the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council 
     of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 1998 revenue 
     estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 
     1998. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999. 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 government or any agency 
     thereof 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 
     rules and procedures and said determination has been reviewed 
     and approved by the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.
       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 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 1998 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.

[[Page H8787]]

       (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)).
       Sec. 129. The University of the District of Columbia shall 
     submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, 
     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 versus 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.
       Sec. 130. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule, 
     or regulation, the evaluation process and instruments for 
     evaluating District of Columbia Public Schools employees 
     shall be a non-negotiable item for collective bargaining 
     purposes.
       Sec. 131. Funds authorized or appropriated to the 
     government of the District of Columbia by this or any other 
     act to procure the necessary hardware and installation of new 
     software, conversion, testing, and training to improve or 
     replace its financial management system are also available 
     for the acquisition of accounting and financial management 
     services and the leasing of necessary hardware, software or 
     any other related goods or services, as determined by the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority.
       Sec. 132. Section 456 of the District of Columbia Self-
     Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (secs. 47-231 
     et seq., D.C. Code) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by--
       (A) striking ``1995'' and inserting ``1998'';
       (B) striking ``Mayor'' and inserting ``District of Columbia 
     Financial Management and Assistance Authority''; and
       (C) striking ``Committee on the District of Columbia'' and 
     inserting ``Committee on Government Reform and Oversight'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by--
       (A) striking ``1997'' and inserting ``1999'';
       (B) striking ``Mayor'' and inserting ``Authority''; and
       (C) striking ``Committee on the District of Columbia'' and 
     inserting ``Committee on Government Reform and Oversight'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``Committee on the 
     District of Columbia'' and inserting ``Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(1), by--
       (A) striking ``1995'' and inserting ``1997'';
       (B) striking ``Mayor'' and inserting ``Chief Financial 
     Officer''; and
       (C) striking ``Committee on the District of Columbia'' and 
     inserting ``Committee on Government Reform and Oversight'';
       (5) in subsection (c)(2)(A), by--
       (A) striking ``1997'' and inserting ``1999'';
       (B) striking ``Mayor'' and inserting ``Chief Financial 
     Officer''; and
       (C) striking ``Committee on the District of Columbia'' and 
     inserting ``Committee on Government Reform and Oversight'';
       (6) in subsection (c)(2)(B), by striking ``Committee on the 
     District of Columbia'' and inserting ``Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight''; and
       (7) in subsection (d)(1), by--
       (A) striking ``1994'' and inserting ``1997'';
       (B) striking ``Mayor'' and inserting ``Chief Financial 
     Officer''; and
       (C) striking ``Committee on the District of Columbia'' and 
     inserting ``Committee on Government Reform and Oversight''.
       Sec. 133. For purposes of the appointment of the head of a 
     department of the government of the District of Columbia 
     under section 11105(a) of the National Capital Revitalization 
     and Self-Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, the 
     following rules shall apply:
       (1) After the Mayor notifies the Council under paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii) of such section of the nomination of an individual 
     for appointment, the Council shall meet to determine whether 
     to confirm or reject the nomination.
       (2) If the Council fails to confirm or reject the 
     nomination during the 7-day period described in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(iii) of such section, the Council shall be deemed to 
     have confirmed the nomination.
       (3) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B) of such section, if 
     the Council does not confirm a nomination (or is not deemed 
     to have confirmed a nomination) during the 30-day period 
     described in such paragraph, the Mayor shall be deemed to 
     have failed to nominate an individual during such period 
     to fill the vacancy in the position of the head of the 
     department.
       Sec. 134. 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.
       Sec. 135. 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 benefits are extended to legally 
     married couples; nor shall any funds made available pursuant 
     to any provision of this Act otherwise be used to implement 
     or enforce D.C. Act 9-188, signed by the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia on April 15, 1992.
       Sec. 136. The Emergency Transitional Education Board of 
     Trustees shall submit to the Congress, the Mayor, the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, 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 versus budget broken out on the basis 
     of control center, responsibility center, agency reporting 
     code, and object class, and for all funds, including capital 
     financing;
       (2) a breakdown of FTE positions and staff for the most 
     current pay period broken out on the basis of control center, 
     responsibility center, and agency reporting code within each 
     responsibility center, for all funds, including capital 
     funds;
       (3) a list of each account for which spending is frozen and 
     the amount of funds frozen, broken out by control center, 
     responsibility center, detailed object, and agency reporting 
     code, and for all funding sources;
       (4) a list of all active contracts in excess of $10,000 
     annually, which contains the name of each contractor; the 
     budget to which the contract is charged broken out on the 
     basis of control center, responsibility center, and agency 
     reporting code; and contract identifying codes used by the 
     D.C. Public Schools; payments made in the last month and 
     year-to-date, the total amount of the contract and total 
     payments made for the contract and any modifications, 
     extensions, renewals; and specific modifications made to each 
     contract in the last month;
       (5) all reprogramming requests and reports that are 
     required to be, and have been, submitted to the Board of 
     Education; and
       (6) changes made in the last month to the organizational 
     structure of the D.C. Public Schools, displaying previous and 
     current control centers and responsibility centers, the names 
     of the organizational entities that have been changed, the 
     name of the staff member supervising each entity affected, 
     and the reasons for the structural change.
       Sec. 137. (a) In General.--The Emergency Transitional 
     Education Board of Trustees 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

[[Page H8788]]

     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.
       Sec. 138. (a) No later than October 1, 1997, or within 15 
     calendar days after the date of the enactment of the District 
     of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1998, whichever occurs later, 
     and each succeeding year, the Emergency Transitional 
     Education Board of Trustees 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 Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees and 
     the University of the District of Columbia submit to the 
     Mayor of the District of Columbia for inclusion in the 
     Mayor's budget submission to the Council of the District of 
     Columbia pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia 
     Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Public 
     Law 93-198, as amended (D.C. Code, sec. 47-301).
       Sec. 139. The Emergency Transitional Education Board of 
     Trustees, the Board of Trustees of the University of the 
     District of Columbia, the Board of Library Trustees, and the 
     Board of Governors of the D.C. School of Law shall vote on 
     and approve their respective annual or revised budgets before 
     submission to the Mayor of the District of Columbia for 
     inclusion in the Mayor's budget submission to the Council of 
     the District of Columbia in accordance with section 442 of 
     the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act, Public Law 93-198, as amended (D.C. Code, 
     sec. 47-301), or before submitting their respective budgets 
     directly to the Council.
       Sec. 140. (a) Ceiling on Total Operating Expenses.--
       (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 1998 
     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; or
       (B) $5,166,304,000 (of which $129,946,000 shall be from 
     intra-District funds), which amount may be increased by the 
     following:
       (i) proceeds of one-time transactions, which are expended 
     for emergency or unanticipated operating or capital needs 
     approved by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority; and
       (ii) additional expenditures which the Chief Financial 
     Officer of the District of Columbia certifies will produce 
     additional revenues during such fiscal year at least equal to 
     200 percent of such additional expenditures, and which are 
     approved by the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance.
       (C) to the extent that the sum of the total revenues of the 
     District of Columbia for such fiscal year exceed the total 
     amount provided for in subsection (B) above, the Chief 
     Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, with the 
     approval of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority, may credit up to ten 
     percent (10%) of the amount of such difference, not to exceed 
     $3,300,000, to a reserve fund which may be expended for 
     operating purposes in future fiscal years, in accordance with 
     the financial plans and budgets for such years.
       (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 1998.
       (b) Acceptance and Use of Grants Not Included in Ceiling.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Mayor 
     in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer of the 
     District of Columbia during a control year, as defined in 
     section 305(4) of Public Law 104-8, as amended, 109 Stat. 
     152, 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, as amended, 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.
       Sec. 141. Section 145(a)(2) of the District of Columbia 
     Retirement Reform Act, approved November 17, 1979 (93 Stat. 
     882; D.C. Code 1-725(a)(2)) is amended by adding subsections 
     (a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) to read as follows:
       ``(A) Up to 50 police officers and up to 50 Fire and 
     Emergency Medical Services members who were hired before 
     February 14, 1980, and who retire on disability before the 
     end of calendar year 1998 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)).''.
       Sec. 142. The District of Columbia Emergency Transitional 
     Education Board of Trustees shall, subject to the contract 
     approval provisions of Public Law 104-8--
       (A) develop a comprehensive plan to identify and accomplish 
     energy conservation measures to achieve maximum cost-
     effective energy and water savings;
       (B) enter into innovative financing and contractual 
     mechanisms including, but not limited to, utility demand-side 
     management programs and energy savings performance contracts 
     and water conservation performance contracts: Provided, That 
     the terms of such contracts do not exceed twenty-five years; 
     and
       (C) permit and encourage each department or agency and 
     other instrumentality of the District of Columbia to 
     participate in programs conducted by any gas, electric or 
     water utility of the management of electricity or gas demand 
     or for energy or water conservation.
       Sec. 143. The District of Columbia Self-Government and 
     Governmental Reorganization Act, approved December 24, 1973 
     (87 Stat. 774; D.C. Code, sec. 1-201 et seq.), is amended by 
     adding a new section 445a to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 445A. SPECIAL MASTERS' BUDGETS.

       ``All Special Masters appointed by the District of Columbia 
     Superior Court or the United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit to any agency of the District of 
     Columbia government shall prepare and annually submit to the 
     District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management 
     Assistance Authority, for inclusion in the annual budget, 
     annual estimates of expenditures and appropriations. Such 
     annual estimates shall be approved by the District of 
     Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
     Authority and the Council of the District of Columbia 
     pursuant to section 202 of the District of Columbia Financial 
     Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995, 
     approved April 17, 1995 (109 Stat. 109; D.C. Code, sec. 47-
     392.2).''
       Sec. 144. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12 
     of the Presidential Protection Assistance Act of 1976 (18 
     U.S.C. 3056, note) in carrying out the protection of the 
     President and Vice President of the United States, pursuant 
     to section 3056(a) of Title 18 of the United States Code, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to reimburse the 
     District of Columbia government for the utilization of law 
     enforcement services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of 
     the District of Columbia in furtherance of such protection. 
     All claims for such reimbursement by the District of Columbia 
     government will be submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury 
     on a quarterly basis.
       (b) Section 1537 of Title 31 of the United States Code is 
     repealed.
       Sec. 145. In addition to amounts appropriated or otherwise 
     made available, $5,000,000 is hereby appropriated to the 
     National Park Service and shall be available

[[Page H8789]]

     only for the United States Park Police operations in the 
     District of Columbia.
       Sec. 146. The District government shall maintain for fiscal 
     year 1998 the same funding levels as provided in fiscal year 
     1997 for homeless services in the District of Columbia.
       Sec. 147. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility 
     and Management Assistance Authority and the Chief Executive 
     Officer of the District of Columbia public schools are hereby 
     directed to report to the Appropriations Committees of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives, the Senate Committee 
     on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Government 
     Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives not 
     later than April 1, 1998, on all measures necessary and steps 
     to be taken to ensure that the District's public schools open 
     on time to begin the 1998-99 academic year.
       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Appropriations Act, 1998''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 264, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran] and a Member opposed each will control 45 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It simply substitutes 
the Senate version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for 
the bill that is being considered today on the House floor.
  There is one important exception. The substitute retains the language 
in the House bill that provides federally funded premium pay for 
District of Columbia police officers and fire fighters.
  This substitute amendment, Mr. Chairman, is not my creation, it is 
not that of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], it is not that of 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], or that of any other 
Democratic Member. This substitute amendment was drafted by the 
Republican Senator from North Carolina, who is chairman of the Senate 
District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, the substitute that we are offering is 
the very same as the Senate bill that Mr. Faircloth and the Senate 
sponsored and which passed, just passed, the Senate floor. It was 
created by the congressionally created District of Columbia Control 
Board, working with the District of Columbia's mayor and the D.C. City 
Council. It was a consensus budget, and it was in accordance with all 
of the procedures that this Congressman stated be followed.
  The substitute balances the District's budget 1 year ahead of 
schedule. Think of that. The substitute we are asking for balances the 
District of Columbia's budget 1 year ahead of schedule. We cannot do 
that for ourselves. And it dedicates $201 million toward deficit 
reduction.
  Would it not be nice if we could do that? But the D.C. government is 
going to reduce its deficit by $200 million, balance its budget a year 
ahead of schedule. And that is what we are asking this House to agree 
to.
  The substitute provides money for charter schools. It prohibits the 
District of Columbia from using Federal and local funds to pay for 
abortions or to allow individuals to include domestic partners on their 
health insurance policies. This is not the kind of bill that we would 
generally favor, but we want the District of Columbia citizens to get 
the money that they need and to get it now, when they need it.
  My substitute, however, does not embroil the Congress and the 
District of Columbia in a number of very unnecessary and ancillary 
controversies that will prevent this bill from being enacted into law. 
If this substitute is not passed, this bill will not be enacted into 
law.
  The substitute will eliminate the need for this Congress, thus, to 
pass another continuing resolution and to further delay the necessary 
budget and management reforms from being implemented in the District of 
Columbia.
  Our reforms will not be implemented if we do not pass the substitute. 
It will eliminate more than 50 legislative provisions that are 
contained in this D.C. Appropriations Act. And it will shrink this 
bill, it will save hundreds of trees, it will shrink this bill by about 
100 pages.
  One hundred pages will not be necessary of extraneous provisions if 
we agree to this substitute. These include provisions on school 
vouchers, Davis-Bacon, medical malpractice, welfare caps, prohibiting 
helicopter flights, restricting the use of automobiles, school leases, 
cutting school administrators, closing Pennsylvania Avenue, repealing 
the NEA tax exemption, restricting the ability to fire the Chief 
Financial Officer and Inspector General, and on, and on, and on.
  Finally, the bill would order the Control Board to aggregate a 
critical contract to provide a new financial management system.

                              {time}  1445

  Of all the issues we talked about, this may be the most important.
  The District desperately needs a new financial management system. 
When this bill orders an end to the financial management system 
contract, Chairman Arthur Brimmer, the chairman of our created control 
board, said it would force the control board into a sole-source 
contract that we would never otherwise agree to, and it will force them 
to upgrade the current, the failing system, by the very company that 
installed the failing system, a company that does not even want the 
contract. It requires that a contract be given to a company that does 
not want it and who did not win it. But it would force it upon them 
through a sole-source contract. Is this what we want to pass?
  The District's current financial management system is more than 18 
years old. The original system was installed after a study showed that 
the District's financial systems and policies were in disarray. It was 
created to eliminate the manual operations then used by the government 
and to adopt a standard modern fiscal reporting procedure that was 
necessary to improve financial and program management.
  It sounded great, but the system never worked, Mr. Chairman. The 
necessary subsystems that were to coordinate the flow of data were 
never installed. The training necessary to enable District employees to 
properly use the system was never conducted.
  Numerous studies and outside experts agreed that the District is 
saddled with a system that cannot provide accurate and timely reports 
about the city spending and tax budget. We demand the reports, but they 
cannot give them to us, on how their money is being spent. Everyone 
agreed it needed to be replaced. This bill, if we do not pass this 
amendment, will prevent it from being replaced, will continue the old 
system.
  As part of its effort to reform the District's finances, the control 
board, along with the chief financial officer, a panel of the highest 
level of public and private sector advisors, began a procurement 
effort, began an effort that we wanted them to do, and they purchased 
and implemented a new financial management system that would rein in 
the District's out-of-control budget. That was their intent. It was 
done through a competitive process, a process we insisted upon.
  The control board received bids from three firms and following all 
the proper procedures, they awarded a $26 million contract to Peat 
Marwick, which is an accounting consulting firm, a large Washington 
office, we are familiar with them. The financial management system did 
not even submit a bid for the new contract, and yet we would force it 
upon them.
  This new system that this substitute will provide for will greatly 
improve the District's financial management and will enable the 
District of Columbia for the first time to cross-reference rent income, 
tax receipts, comparative cash balances, to actually ensure that the 
District's tax assessments and tax returns are accurate. It will enable 
the District, for the first time, to measure the performance of public 
services. We have been asking them to do this year in and year out. 
They will do it if we allow them to, and it will ensure that they are 
not only doing the job they are supposed to, but doing it within the 
congressionally appropriated budget levels.
  We all know how much technology has changed over the last 20 years. A 
new financial management system for the District will enable the city 
to take advantage of the technology revolution, use it to its benefit. 
In the words of the control board chairman, the subcommittee's efforts, 
in other words, if we do not pass this amendment, it will force the 
city to upgrade its old financial system just in the same way that we 
would ask IBM to upgrade manual typewriters instead of

[[Page H8790]]

replacing them with computers. It is comparable to that. That is why we 
cannot let it happen. Without buying a modern financial system, the 
chairman of the control board said, the board will not be able to 
fulfill its congressional mandate.
  We cannot require it to do something and then take from them the 
means to accomplish what we forced them, Mr. Chairman, to do. We have 
to approve financial accountability in the city, and that is why, as 
important as any other reason, that is why we need the substitute 
amendment.
  We created the board to reform the District's financial management. 
We created the chief financial officer to rein in their spending. Both 
entities that we created are unequivocally opposed to this bill. They 
unequivocally support what we are trying to do with the substitute 
amendment, which is the Senate bill.
  My substitute amendment will ensure that they can do their jobs, and 
that, as much as anything else, is a compelling reason to vote for the 
substitute amendment. If we fail to pass it, the D.C. appropriations 
bill will not be enacted before the continuing resolution expires. It 
will not. It will not be enacted before Congress adjourns in November, 
and this will mean that Congress must pass a long-term CR for the 
District that is comparable to the 6-month continuing resolution in 
1995, which wreaked havoc, havoc that we are still paying a price for.
  This continuing resolution will prevent the District from entering 
into long-term contracts. It is going to cost us millions of dollars, 
wasted money. It will delay the implementation of the management 
reforms that we have been begging the District and the control board to 
undertake. It will further delay the day when the District stops being 
the whipping boy of the Nation and begins to fundamentally restructure 
and improve its operations. That is what we want. That is what we said 
we have got to have. Do not deny them the means to accomplish it.
  The District of Columbia needs us to pass this substitute. Pass this 
appropriations bill, have it signed into law, begin the step-by-step 
process of turning the Capital City around, turning it into a capital 
of which we can all be proud. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote 
for the Moran substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from North 
Carolina seek the time in opposition?
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  First of all the Moran amendment in effect, could be called the 
Rubber Stamp Act of 1997, because we would be merely putting forth what 
the Senate put forth, and we found a number of deficits.
  I outlined in my early comments that there are many things that our 
bill does that the Senate bill does not do, and we are going to have 
folks to explain that during our 45 minutes. But to mention one of the 
areas that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] just spoke about, we 
do differ about the FMS.
  There was $31 million to be spent on the FMS. Now, our committee did 
not arbitrarily say we are going to prevent this from happening. We 
investigated. We got reports from the GAO, we got reports from our S&I 
staff, and I have the essence of those reports. One of them says, after 
going through a list of reasons why we should not spend that $31 
million--they conclude by saying that, ``This acquisition should be 
considered premature and would only result in continued system 
inaccuracies and rising costs.''
  One of the other reports says that, ``We believe there is a higher 
risk that the District will be driven by its ambitious acquisition 
schedule and will not allow itself time to develop the kind of quality 
analysis that it must have in order to manage this important project, 
which is so critical to the District's financial recovery.''
  What they said was that it is much better for us to hire professional 
staff to augment what we have in the District of Columbia, and to 
produce an honest, clear, accounting, and until we do that, we should 
not be spending $31 million and getting the same inaccurate analysis 
and reports that we have had in the past.
  So if we want to rely on GAO, S&I, and other testimony we had in the 
Committee, then we should not be spending $31 million of the taxpayers' 
funds in this manner. We have not been disputed in this during any of 
the hearings, and that is one of the reasons that we held this 
position. We believe that we should spend that money only when we are 
absolutely sure that we are getting adequate accounting, and not just 
because there is some reason to spend $31 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me and for his hard work, and I thank the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dixon] for his leadership. I rise to support the Moran 
substitute.
  I do want to acknowledge the chairman, because I think it is 
important that we pay District of Columbia fire fighters and police, 
that is a good thing in this bill. But I cannot be as appreciative of 
the rest of the aspects of this bill, because the Republican 
carpetbaggers are here in Washington, DC with their bag of tricks, to 
gut home rule for their citizens.
  This is a plantation mentality. This is also a clear showing of 
disrespect for the financial control board that this Congress set up to 
implement a cooperative relationship with an oversight board and the 
local government of the city of Washington, DC. This legislation is a 
striking undermining of the rights of taxpaying residents and saying 
that they are not in charge, but this Republican Congress is in charge.
  This legislation refers to helicopters flying in the District of 
Columbia. It also includes the issue of limiting medical malpractice 
lawsuits. It cuts positions in public schools. It puts in school 
vouchers. A clear denunciation of public school education, and a 
misleading attempt to bribe poorer D.C. residents who want a better 
education. Vouchers will not do that. And, unfortunately, though we do 
not have the amendment of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], 
regarding saving the U.D.C. Law School the Moran substitute does save 
the University of the District of Columbia School of law for the 
hundreds of law students training to be lawyers to serve their 
community.
  The Moran substitute is the right approach that will recognize that 
the District of Columbia does deserve to have home rule, can rule 
itself and institute a balanced budget and protects public education. 
Let us get rid of this plantation mentality; let us send the Republican 
carpetbaggers with their bag of tricks home. There is good leadership 
in this city and they do have the ability to educate their children 
with strong support from the Congress of public school education.
  Vouchers are not the right way. Ditching the work force and 
eliminating the Davis-Bacon Act was not the right way. We must have the 
Moran substitute. This Congress must return home rule to the District 
of Columbia. This is not a time for politeness, I am outraged at how 
the majority is treating the residents of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the responsibility to effectively manage 
the practical and fiscal concerns of our Capital is one that should not 
be taken lightly by the Congress. To this regard, I am asking this 
House to vote in favor of the Moran substitute to the D.C. 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.
  Frankly, as it stands, this legislation leaves many relevant areas of 
concerns for the residents of the District of Columbia in a state of 
total disarray. The bill needs further reproof and correction, of 
which, I believe the Moran substitute is the best available option. The 
Moran substitute would do the service to the residents of the District 
of Columbia of removing over 60 controversial policy riders attached to 
this legislation. First of all, these riders have no place in an 
appropriations bill, and second, they create a poorer quality of life, 
with a few notable exceptions like the pay raise for D.C. classroom 
teachers, for the citizens of the District.
  There are two points of concern, for myself, and many other members 
of this body with regard to H.R. 2607, one, is the school scholarship 
or vouchers provision included in subtitle

[[Page H8791]]

B of title III of the bill, commonly referred to as the District of 
Columbia Education Reform Act of 1997, and, two, the policy rider that 
would eliminate funding for the University of the District of Columbia 
Law School. First, I will discuss the voucher provision.
  This provision would authorize the distribution of scholarships of up 
to $3,200 to the District of Columbia resident students in grades K-12 
from low to moderate income families to attend public or private 
schools in the District or nearby suburbs or to pay the costs of 
supplementary academic programs outside regular school hours for 
students attending D.C. public schools. However, only 2,000 students 
will receive tuition scholarships, and possibly another 2,000 D.C. 
students will receive achievement scholarship moneys.
  This legislative initiative could obviously set a dangerous precedent 
from this body as to the course of public education in America for 
decades to come. If the U.S. Congress abandons public education in the 
District, and sends that message to localities nationwide, a fatal blow 
could be struck to public schooling. The impetus behind this 
legislative agenda is clearly suspect. Instead of using these funds to 
improve the quality of public education for all D.C. residents, a 
number of 78,000 D.C. public school students, this policy initiative 
enriches fiscally successful, local private and public institutions. 
Furthermore, if this policy initiative is so desirable, why are 76,000 
D.C. students left behind? Can this plan be a solution. I would assert 
that it can not. Unless all of our children are helped, what value does 
this grand political experiment have?

  I see this initiative as a small step in trying to position the 
Government behind private elementary and secondary schools. The 
ultimate question is why do those in this body who continue to support 
public education with their lipservice, persist in trying to slowly 
erode the acknowledged sources of funding for our public schools? 
Public education, and its future, is an issue of the first magnitude. 
One that affects the constituency of every member of this House, and 
thus deserves full and open consideration.
  School vouchers, have not been requested by public mandate from the 
Congress, actually, they have failed every time they have been offered 
on a State ballot by 65 percent or greater. If a piece of legislation 
proposes to send our taxpayer dollars, whether in the District of 
Columbia, or elsewhere, to private or religious schools, the highest 
levels of scrutiny are in order, and an amendment that may correct such 
a provision is unquestionably germane. Nine out of ten American 
children attend public schools, we must not abandon them, their reform 
is our hope.
  As for the D.C. School of Law, I believe that it is a place of 
opportunity for the residents of this city who wish to gain a legal 
education, but often can not afford to receive that education 
elsewhere. The removal of this school's funding is a blatant attack on 
the course of public professional education in the District. The 
majority of the students in the U.D.C. Law School are African-American, 
as are a vast majority of the residents of the District of Columbia, 
plainly stated, these are the people that will be hurt by the removal 
of these vital funds.
  In light of these facts, I must support the Moran amendment to 
restore funding to the U.D.C. Law School, and ask that it receive the 
full support of this House. The statement that this action makes to the 
people of the District, is that the House, is not in favor of 
affordable and accessible public legal education for its citizen. Are 
the citizens of this city any less deserving of a legal education than 
other Americans? I say that they are not. I agree that the U.D.C. Law 
School needs improvement, it needs to strengthen its accreditation, but 
the answers to these problems is not the removal of the school's 
funding.
  I believe that the best hope for the District of Columbia is a fully 
funded and stabilized U.D.C. Law School, because the school is simply 
too valuable to the community and its citizens. For these reasons, I 
ask this body to support the Moran substitute to the D.C. 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, this is an incredible debate. As I sat here 
listening to the debate it was obvious to me that this is a defining 
issue between liberals and conservatives. This debate is about 
empowering the people of the District of Columbia and parents or 
empowering bureaucrats.
  If we listen to the words of the gentleman from Virginia and the 
gentlewoman from Texas, just listen to what they are saying: Let the 
Democrats work. Let the bureaucrats make the decision. Keep the power 
in the hands of the bureaucrats. Do not let people in D.C. make these 
decisions, do not let parents decide what schools their children would 
go to.
  So I rise in opposition to this amendment, which strikes a number of 
very important reforms in this bill, but the one I want to focus on 
that is defining in this debate is the fact that this Moran amendment 
strips the ability of D.C. parents to choose where their children 
should go to school.
  Now, I ask my colleagues, what are they afraid of when it comes to 
school choice for parents in D.C.? The D.C. school system has failed. 
Those bureaucrats have failed. It has failed to provide the children of 
this city the kind of education that will help them succeed. It has 
failed to provide its students an atmosphere where they can learn. 
Those bureaucrats have failed to prepare the students of this city for 
the future. The system has failed, the bureaucrats have failed, and we 
need to change the system.
  But some of my colleagues do not want any change. They want to 
protect that status quo. They have those bureaucrats aboard, in place, 
and they have done a wonderful job getting those bureaucrats there. 
They want the money to continue to flow to a bureaucracy that continues 
to waste money.
  Since 1979, the D.C. school system has lost 33,000 students, but the 
bureaucracy has doubled in that period of time.

                              {time}  1500

  In 1996, the Board of Education allocated $1.4 million for itself. 
That is more than five times the amount Fairfax County's board has 
spent, and more than twice the amount that Montgomery County's board 
has spent, the two counties right next-door to Washington, DC.
  Over and over again the school officials have broken the law in order 
to save their jobs. They are paying tens of millions of dollars to 
administrators who have been ordered to be laid off by these 
bureaucrats. They keep paying them. What have the residents of 
Washington, DC, gained with all this bigger bureaucracy and this 
wonderful board? Lower test scores, more dangerous hallways, and 
schools that cannot even be opened. They cannot even open up the 
schools.
  The bottom line is, who is more capable of choosing a child's 
education, the child's parents, or the bureaucrats of the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran]? Who are we trying to protect, the child in 
Washington, DC, or that school administrator's job that keeps getting 
paid, that was supposed to be laid off by the bureaucrats of the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]?
  The time has come for school choice. The time has come to give 
parents the opportunity to have a greater role in choosing the right 
school for their own children, and not have bureaucrats make that 
decision. The time has come to inject accountability into this system 
that has avoided accountability for too many years. The time has come 
to stop the bureaucrats. Vote against the Moran amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 35 seconds to 
point out to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] that this bill that I 
support, the portion that I support, reduces personnel in the school 
system from 11,253 down to 9,960.
  I also have a letter I have just received from Dr. Brimmer, who 
chairs the Board that this Congress established, that urges us to vote 
for the Moran substitute. It is because without the Moran substitute, 
they will not have the local control that we guaranteed them in the 
D.C. Revitalization Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], who I am sure will be more than happy to respond to the comments 
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with 
the District of Columbia. As was evidenced by the last speech on that 
side of the aisle, what we have here is an attempt by a number of 
Members of the majority party to use the District of Columbia as a pawn 
for the purpose of reading from the playbook of their well-known 
pollster, Frank Luntz, who has given them a whole series of sound 
bites, so they can try to deliver messages on other issues around the 
country by using the District of Columbia as a political pawn in the 
process. That is what is going on. Read the Luntz playbook, and we have 
virtually seen a

[[Page H8792]]

copy of the previous speech from that side of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to show the Members something. We just passed 
the military construction bill, 17 pages, to spend $9.2 billion. The 
D.C. bill is so loaded down with legislative proscriptions that it 
takes 179 pages to spend one-tenth of the amount that was spent in the 
military construction bill. We passed a defense bill, spending $247 
billion, 100 pages. This D.C. bill is 180 pages. We spent 300 times as 
much in the defense bill with one-half the language ordering somebody 
else around that we have in the D.C. bill.
  There is absolutely no reason for this Congress to endanger the 
safety of the President of the United States by taking away the 
security that we now have on Pennsylvania Avenue around the White 
House. Yet, this bill does it. There is no reason to impose our own 
judgment on education vouchers on the District of Columbia, yet this 
bill does it. There is no reason for this Congress to tell States that 
they should handle their own welfare problems, but then take away from 
the District of Columbia the ability to design their own welfare reform 
programs. Yet this bill does it. There is no reason for this Congress 
to get in the way of the Fiscal Control Board's reforming the financial 
practices of the District, and yet this bill does it.
  This bill is a political document for political purposes. It imposes 
once again its plantation mentality on the District of Columbia, to no 
good purpose, and it is going nowhere. We are already one week into the 
fiscal year. We are past the time when politicians are supposed to be 
sending messages. We are at the time when we are supposed to be 
resolving differences so we can complete our action on the budget.
  Yet, on the Labor-HEW bill, that portion of the government is in 
danger of being shut down until they get their way on a key item in 
that bill, on testing. We are in danger of seeing the Interior 
Department budget shut down unless they get their way so they can keep 
cutting the redwoods in California and keep polluting Yellowstone Park. 
We are in danger of seeing the foreign policy budget of this country 
under the foreign operations bill shut down unless they get their way 
on the Mexico City policy.
  Now we are in danger of seeing the D.C. bill held hostage unless they 
get their way on their social experiments for D.C. It is about time to 
quit the political posturing, recognize the President will not sign 
this bill without the passage of the Moran amendment, and pass the 
Moran amendment. It is the only fiscally responsible and politically 
responsible act to take.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup].
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, public schools are always going to be 
important in this country. They have been important across the country 
and they are important right here in Washington, DC. But our public 
schools are broken in this city. We have tried a lot of things in the 
last couple of years to try to bring them away. The truth is, the 
minority party had their way for years in developing this city and this 
city's schools, and we have an entirely broken system. We are looking 
for solutions. We believe that the public school system will continue 
to be very important for the children in this community, but we need to 
stop talking about what is good for the adults in this system. We need 
to think about the children. You only get to be 6 years old one time in 
your life. You only get to be 7 years old one time in your life. If we 
get it right, if we put our heads together and we deal with the 
systemic, broken system, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 10 years we can fix 
this entirely broken system. But in the meantime, the 6-year-olds that 
only get to be 6 once should not be trapped in an absolutely broken 
school system.
  Every mom and dad, and I think of me and my six children, go to sleep 
every night worrying about the school their child is going to go to the 
next morning: Will they be safe and will they learn something? There is 
nothing more tortuous than when your child gets into a classroom and 
you do not believe that they can learn in that classroom. You go and 
talk to the principal. You try to move your child to another classroom. 
You look around for what your other opportunities are. But in this 
case, it is an entirely broken system. There is not just another 
teacher across the hall that will change everything. There is not just 
another opportunity down the street. You send your six-year-old to 
school trapped in a school that is neither safe nor will they learn. 
This is our gift to children who are going to be 6 years old, this year 
for the one time in their life, to the 7-year-olds who are going to be 
7 years old only one time in their whole life. It is a chance for their 
families to make a decision to take the same action each and every one 
of us will.
  If we fight that that is not enough, that we leave behind 75,000, 
then let us fight about how many other children we can find the money 
to give the same opportunity to, so that every 6-year-old will not be 
trapped in a school that is going to guarantee a bad start, guarantee 
going to sleep every night afraid.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the bill as it is written, so 
we can give children the chance they will only get this year.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to emphasize this is Mr. Faircloth's bill that we are asking 
the House to pass.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran 
substitute, and in opposition to the Republican voucher scheme in the 
D.C. appropriation bill. This Republican assault on public education is 
nothing new. The radical Republican right have a plan to dismantle 
public education, abolish the Department of Education, cut the school 
lunch program, cut funding for safe- and drug-free schools, for 
teachers' training, for Head Start.
  Two days ago the Republican leadership went to a public school in the 
District of Columbia to promote that radical plan, a private school 
voucher scheme that would drain needed resources from our public 
schools. Here today we consider a deal that includes the voucher 
scheme, a scheme that would drain $45 million in Federal funds away 
from public schools in the District.
  So do not be fooled. The Republicans' agenda is a hidden agenda to 
destroy public education. To this radical plan, to this extreme plan, I 
say no, and the Democrats say no. This morning the Democratic Members 
marched in celebration of public education from the steps of the 
Capitol to the steps of Brent Elementary School in Southeast 
Washington. We marched to support our public schools. We marched to 
protest the Republican private school voucher scheme. We marched to 
make a very simple and elementary case: public schools in every State, 
city, town, village, and hamlet need and deserve our support. Nine out 
of every ten students attend public schools. We should be working and 
building together to improve our public schools, not giving up on them 
and selling them down the river.
  Mr. Chairman, our children deserve better than the easy scheme and 
quick-fix solution, our students deserve better. They deserve good 
schools, good teachers, and an education that takes them into the 21st 
century. Stop attacking our public schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Moran 
substitute.
  Early this morning during the debate on the rule a Member on the 
other side tried to imply that Martin Luther King, Jr., would support 
vouchers. Let me say that I knew Martin Luther King, Jr. He was a 
friend of mine. He was my leader. If he were here today, he would not 
be supporting what the Republicans are trying to do to the District of 
Columbia.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake].
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today against many of the tenets of 
this bill that we have before us, the D.C. bill, because I think it 
does take away basic responsibilities of government, of people to 
govern themselves and pay their taxes, and they ought to be given the 
same privileges as any other municipality in this Nation.

                              {time}  1515

  However, I also rise because I have heard my name mentioned on 
several

[[Page H8793]]

occasions during this debate, and I came over from my office because I 
think it is imperative, as one who has stood in favor of vouchers, that 
at least I state my position for the record in this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to understand, as far as 
I am concerned, and let me give my credentials so those that wonder if 
I have a right to even speak on education, I spent 7 years in higher 
education as a dean at Boston University and at Lincoln University. I 
have started my own school 15 years ago, pre-K to eighth grade. So I 
think I have some understanding of the educational process here.
  I also understand that in the communities that are most impacted by 
the issues that have been raised at least by this bill, that many of 
our young people are not getting the kind of education that prepares 
them to function competitively in a global society.
  Our reality becomes one of trying to determine whether our moral 
obligation is to continue to maintain a monolith that does not seem to 
understand that there has emerged and developed within it a two-tiered 
system. There is a system that does educate properly those young people 
who represent the highest economic brackets of American society. There 
is also a lower tier. The young people in the lower tier are generally 
represented in those communities that I represent and many of my 
colleagues in this Congress represent.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is time for us to try to remove the 
politics, Republican or Democrat, and deal with the reality that our 
children are not being properly educated in many of our schools. They 
are not being readied for the testing that they must face as they try 
to move forward in life. No matter where we go in urban America, we 
must admit, whether we want to or not, that our public schools in 
certain communities are failing our children.
  I started out my career as a social worker in Head Start. We tested 
kids at the second grade level when they were leaving Head Start. Two 
years later, we tested those kids at the second grade level in public 
education.
  I am not against public education, but I would say that when the 
borders of America opened up and the Big Three thought they had a 
monopoly in the automobile business, when they felt there was 
competition, they improved. Everywhere where choice has been introduced 
in this country, schools have improved in the public sector as well.
  I would argue that if it was good for the automobile industry, 
certainly our children are more valuable than that. If we made changes 
in telecommunications to create competition, certainly our children are 
more valuable than that. My argument is: Let us put the emphasis where 
it ought to be. That is for the children.
  I do not support this bill, but I do support vouchers, and I think it 
is time for us to wake up, because we cannot afford to keep losing 
generations of our children and sending them to jail because we do not 
believe that we ought to continue to try to reform public education.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman whether he supports the 
Moran substitute, the amendment that we are proposing.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will look at 
it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Flake], my dear friend, Reverend Congressman Flake, whose career 
has been preeminent since I have been here, I hold a letter from Dr. 
Andrew Brimmer, I hold a letter from the Executive Office of the 
President of the United States. One begs us to support the Moran 
substitute; the other guarantees that the Gingrich bill will be vetoed 
if it ever gets near passage of law.
  Now, while the gentleman from New York is busy studying for the next 
2 hours the Moran substitute, I want him to have this heavy on his 
heart. We need the gentleman's support. This is one of the most 
important final measures that the gentleman will pass on, and we want 
to remember him in all the spirit of excellence in which he has served 
in the Congress.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman remembers me as a person 
who has spent a lifetime building schools and preparing young people 
for the future, then I think he will be able to remember me in that 
way. Children first, education first, and I will do what is appropriate 
for the bill.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Taylor] for doing a fine job, and I rise in opposition to the 
Moran amendment because I believe it will weaken the city and weaken 
the ability of the city to recover from the financial stress it has 
been under. It will also weaken the management capability that they 
have.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues oppose this amendment, they will 
improve the city's finances by allowing for the recovery of fees and 
costs from bad checks. By opposing this amendment, they will clarify 
the city's authority over unclaimed property. By opposing this 
amendment, they will provide more accountability in tightening the 
detailees. There are some city offices that hide the size of their 
bureaucracy by detailees, and by opposing this amendment, my colleagues 
will allow the city to make direct deposits and payments.
  Also, if my colleagues support this amendment, they will strike $12 
million to collect unpaid taxes, which will net an additional $50 
million for this city. If my colleagues allow this amendment to pass, 
they will remove many of the management tools that are necessary to 
manage this city.
  Mr. Chairman, there are some limitations on the Control Board in this 
bill, but they are related to accountability. And in the public sector, 
there is nothing wrong with accountability.
  Let us look at the schools. They are desperately in need of attention 
here. This amendment protects the status quo. It protects the crumbling 
schools. It protects the dropout rate. It protects the status quo. It 
does not restrict pay raises to teachers with valid credentials, nor 
does it remove the bureaucracy in the school administration office.
  Mr. Chairman, D.C. schools spends $9,400 a year per student, with a 
third going to administration, a third going to overhead, and only a 
third getting to the classroom. We need to focus our resources on the 
classroom. That is where the rubber meets the road. It is not in the 
school administration. It is not in the overhead. It is in the 
classroom.
  Mr. Chairman, vouchers seem to be the driving force of this 
amendment. I must say that vouchers are in full sense a freedom. During 
Reconstruction, it was the radical Republicans who believed in full 
citizenship for African-Americans, and today it is radical Republicans, 
if my colleagues listen to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], 
that believe in freedom of choice for children of color here in the 
District of Columbia.
  We want to take the most impoverished children and give them the 
opportunity to go to a school where there is hope, where they can rise 
above the desperation they see in their daily lives. What is wrong with 
us allowing them the opportunity to select a different option?
  Well, this amendment I think is, again, protecting the status quo. It 
is trying to defend something that I think is indefensible. So let us 
not bind up the opportunity for children in poverty to move out of 
their bondage of a school that is crumbling and unsafe, but give them 
the opportunity to select the type of school that will give them the 
opportunity they can use in the future.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman how much his 
school district spends on its children in his district per student.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in Kansas we spend 
about $4,100 per student.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
what is the ratio to administrators?

[[Page H8794]]

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I am sorry, I do 
not know that.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, that is 
what I thought.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran amendment, 
particularly because it eliminates the voucher program which 
constitutes a frontal assault on the idea of universal education for 
all, and it also violates church-state separation.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to be asking as we consider vouchers whether 
or not this program will help improve education for all of our 
children, whether it will foster discrimination, and whether there are 
better ways to use the money.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, many cite the polls, and they asked in 
the poll question: Do you support a voucher plan that will allow 
parents to send their children to a public, private, or parochial 
school of their choice?
  Mr. Chairman, let me offer a few facts on the table. Only 3 percent 
might get a voucher, 97 percent will not. There are not enough seats in 
the Washington, D.C., area for 2,000 additional children to go to 
private school. Most of those are religious schools, where there will 
be constitutional challenges, so most of the 3 percent will not even be 
able to use the vouchers.
  We have to differentiate, Mr. Chairman, between the cost of the 
school and the tuition. Unless there is significant private 
underwriting, there are not going to be any additional seats for people 
to go to.
  So the polls should be asking, Mr. Chairman, whether or not people 
support a plan that will give 3 percent a voucher that most cannot use, 
and divert money from a school system that needs new roofs, and do 
nothing for 97 percent of the students.
  Mr. Chairman, we know how to improve education. We need to invest in 
education, and we can make significant improvements if we do that.
  Mr. Chairman, we know the voucher program is also an insult to the 
residents of Washington, D.C., who have voted against it in the polls, 
and their elected representatives have repeatedly rejected it. So we 
know what they think about the voucher program, and we should not 
substitute what we know they have done with the results of a misleading 
poll which generates political sound bites.
  Mr. Chairman, let us invest in our education funds and public 
education to improve education for all. I urge my colleagues to reject 
vouchers and support the Moran amendment.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, [Ms. Pryce].
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, just the other day I visited Hine 
Junior High School with some of my colleagues just a few blocks away 
from the Capitol, and while there, I spoke with the students. They are 
wonderfully bright, capable students. They deserve the best in 
education, just like young people all across America do.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, many children in the District of 
Columbia are made to endure some of the lowest school standards and 
some of the most dangerous conditions in the country, despite the fact 
that the D.C. public schools spend some of the most money per student 
in the Nation. Clearly, throwing money at the problem is not working to 
improve these schools.
  Mr. Chairman, some fortunate students in the District have families 
who can afford to send their children to private schools, parochial 
schools, or to move to the suburbs where the schools might be better. 
But many in the District do not have that luxury.
  It is a crime that some would suggest simply maintaining the status 
quo for those families who have no choice, relegating their children to 
the prison of the same tired, dangerous, underperforming public school 
system that we have been observing with horror for too many years now.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that this bill does not take 
money from the D.C. public school budget. It adds scholarships on top 
of that budget. This bill will, in fact, enable more money to be spent 
on the children who remain in the D.C. public schools, enhancing 
education for all students across the board.
  Mr. Chairman, by providing parents some choice, we will be sending a 
wake-up call to the public school system telling them they can no 
longer take the children of D.C. for granted. By passing this reform, 
we will be telling the D.C. public schools, you must change, you must 
produce, you must live up to the hopes and dreams of the children and 
the families of the District of Columbia. Now is the time, and here are 
the resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the defeat of the Moran amendment that 
would critically strip out this critical reform.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that [Ms. Pryce] 
mentioned Hine Junior High School, which is a very fine public junior 
high school.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran], my good friend who has done such hard work 
on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of his substitute bill. Now, I 
want to talk about vouchers for just a second here. I find it tough to 
listen to some people on the other side of the aisle that all of a 
sudden say they want to help low-income people in D.C., when we had 
proposals coming from them a few weeks ago saying that we do not want 
even welfare recipients moving from welfare to work to get the minimum 
wage. But they are ``real concerned'' about low-income people in D.C.
  Now, the voucher program in D.C. would maybe help a few thousand 
people out of 76,000 students in the public education system. That is 
like saying to Americans, well, we found out the IRS is terribly 
broken, but let us just fix it for a few people and let everybody else 
have the IRS completely mess up their lives.
  We need to take on the tough reforms in public education to solve it 
for all public school students in California, in Indiana, and in D.C. 
That means public school choice and charter schools. That means firing 
teachers that do not do the job and getting rid of principals that are 
not doing the job. That means safety and discipline in the schools. 
That means teacher academies to teach the next generation of 2 million 
new teachers that we need to hire for the next 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not a bumper-sticker solution like private school 
vouchers that is going to fix this public education system. It is hard 
work. It is public choice. It is safety and discipline. It is parental 
involvement.
  I think all Americans know we all need to work together to save our 
public education system and not posture with bumper-sticker solutions 
to save a few thousand children here or there and suck away precious 
resources from rural and suburban and inner-city schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment 
of the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger].
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of school choice 
for the parents of the District of Columbia. I do so because I believe 
a good education is an American right, not a privilege, and today too 
many of our young people have had their rights denied.

                              {time}  1530

  I support school choice. As a teacher and a mother, no one supports 
America's teachers more than I do. As a former public school teacher 
myself I realize, recognize and respect the vital role that teachers 
play in shaping and challenging young lives and eager minds. I believe 
our teachers are America's heroes. And as I like to say, most people 
spend their lives building careers, but teachers spend their careers 
building lives.
  It is precisely because of my support for teachers that I support 
school choice. I believe allowing parents to choose a school will allow 
schools to treat teachers with the respect and authority and dignity 
they deserve. Schools will be able to hire good teachers at good pay 
for doing good work,

[[Page H8795]]

and teachers will be empowered to teach sound basics and in safe 
classrooms.
  For too long we have allowed our teachers to be taken for granted 
while our students have just been taken. I believe school choice will 
empower our schools, our communities, our teachers and our students. We 
can do no less for our children, although they deserve much more.
  School choice is good news for America's teachers but it is even 
better news for America's parents. As the mother of three, I know how 
important it is to be able to send my children to schools I trust with 
teachers I know and parents I can work with.
  Of my children, one graduated from private school, one from church 
school, and one from public school. Each of these schools was tailor 
made to serve the specific interests and individual needs of my 
children, yet not one of these schools could have served all three of 
my children. Why? Because each school is different and every child is 
unique. The one-size-fits-all approach of yesterday does not work in 
the classrooms of today. Yet it is exactly what millions of inner city 
parents are faced with each year, no choice of a better school, no 
chance of a good education, and thus no change in the status quo.
  As this Congress begins to address the issue of school choice for the 
children of the District of Columbia, I think it might be helpful if we 
asked ourselves a simple question: Why not? Why not allow our schools 
the chance to improve and our teachers the chance to teach? Why not 
allow our parents a chance to spend their own money sending their own 
kids to their own school of choice? I would ask those in the 
opposition, if it were their child, what choice would they make?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
honorable gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], vice chairman of 
the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.
  Mrs. MORELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as was mentioned, as vice chairman of the Subcommittee 
on the District of Columbia under the Committee on Government Reform 
and Oversight, I have, like my colleagues, worked hard on legislation 
that I believe will help to revitalize the District of Columbia. That 
legislation allows the Federal Government to assume some burdensome 
responsibilities that had been borne by the District and puts into 
place some important management controls.
  I believe the House bill that is before us would undo some of this 
carefully crafted legislation. That is why I am supporting the Moran 
substitute. It is my understanding that there are more than 60 
provisions in the House bill that are not in the Senate bill. I believe 
that many of these provisions are an undue attempt to micromanage the 
District government. We have no business doing that. The day-to-day 
operations of the District should still be in the hands of the Mayor 
and City Council with oversight by the financial control board. 
Congress set up the Financial Control Board. We should allow the panel 
to do its job.
  I believe it is essential to move this legislation along and pass on 
a D.C. appropriations bill in a timely fashion. Many of the 
micromanagement provisions in the House bill would really gravely stall 
the legislative process and prevent the District from receiving its 
funding. This has happened in the past. It has impacted millions of 
people in the Washington region who depend on an efficient budget 
process. So I want to move this process ahead.
  I appreciate the hard work by the chairman and the members of the 
subcommittee. I know this bill was crafted with a great deal of care 
and diligence. However, the Senate bill is free of those controversial 
riders that could unfortunately hold captive the District's much-needed 
funds. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the Moran 
substitute.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlewoman from Maryland's 
opinions but I disagree with them. Today I rise to say that the 
District of Columbia's students and their parents ought to have a 
choice.
  Americans have differing opinions on many issues today but we all 
want our children to have the world's best education. That is precisely 
why I support educational choice scholarships for D.C. students. 
Tuition scholarships offer real educational opportunities to families 
whose children simply do not have the option of attending the best 
schools possible.
  The Democrat substitute before us today would deny educational choice 
to poor working families in the District, and that is why we should 
oppose it. The scholarship opportunities provided in our bill offer 
hope to children who are now confined to failing, often violence-filled 
public schools. Passing our bill into law will mean that low income 
families will be able to send their children to public or private 
schools that are successful, and that the District's struggling public 
schools will be compelled to compete and then get better in order to 
attract students.
  In short, parents must have a choice if the District's children are 
to have a chance. Parents should be able to hold schools accountable.
  For instance, D.C. parents know that 85 percent of the District's 
public school graduates who enter the University of the District of 
Columbia need 2 years of remedial education before beginning to earn 
their degrees. Parents know that the current leaking roof problems are 
minor when compared to the problems of violence and academic failure in 
many of the D.C. public schools. That is why parents in the District, 
regardless of ethnicity, overwhelmingly support opportunity 
scholarships.
  We must do better. We must provide an alternative; namely, the 
scholarship program on which the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the 
majority leader, has provided such clear leadership. Vote against the 
Democrat substitute. Vote for educational scholarships and real 
opportunity for the less affluent children of the District, and join me 
in looking forward to the day when parents try to get their children 
into D.C. public schools.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly and strongly 
support the Moran amendment. It is a good substitute for the House 
bill. The House bill is flawed and we know it.
  Much of what is in the House bill has an overriding concern behind it 
and it is money, m-o-n-e-y. It is what is drawing and flying through 
this country with the voucher movement. Do we not know, are we not 
sensible enough to know that if the Congress of the United States had 
not appropriated $7 million or more for this school voucher program 
here in Washington, D.C., the same people who are perpetuating it would 
have nothing to say about helping the kids in the District?
  We need to understand that the District is not a laboratory school 
for this Congress. The proponents do not know enough about education to 
even set up a laboratory school. We have not had a committee look at 
this, but the proponents want to attach it to an appropriation bill 
without any substance.
  The District deserves a thorough analysis before we change their 
school system. Bring to me one ounce of support that shows that the 
voucher system will improve on any current system in this country. We 
can go to Wisconsin and they can show me some minimal things but, 
overall, show me the impact of the voucher system on regular school 
systems in this country. I have been an educator for 42 years. Show me, 
instead of talking.
  I know that money drives the voucher. None of these private schools 
wanted the kids from my District five years ago. They did not want them 
two years ago. But now there is a movement through this country, that 
they feel that the money that is in public education will now go to 
their schools.
  Let the District have its own schools. Let them educate their 
children. We are sick and tired of this beltway colonialism. That is 
the only word I can say for it. We are going to superimpose our 
feelings on the District.
  These are smart people. They know what they are doing. Give them a 
chance. It is flawed.

[[Page H8796]]

  I want to say a word or two about the law school of the University of 
the District of Columbia. Let us preserve that law school. Let us keep 
it going.
  I want to yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], but 
before I do I want to say, keep this law school. We need it. We need it 
to keep the principles of educating our children here. Do not give it 
any kind of standards that it cannot meet.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I do want to take this opportunity during 
the gentlewoman's time on the debate to praise her for the unstinting, 
unswerving commitment that she has shown on the floor, in the 
committee, in the Committee on Rules for preserving the University of 
the District of Columbia Law School. The gentlewoman has our undying 
gratitude.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 15 
seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my very good friend for yielding me 
the time.
  I want to say to my colleagues, it is unfortunate we cannot, I speak 
as a subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, we cannot have today, although I believe it is coming in the 
near future, a debate on giving low income parents the full range of 
choice across all competing institutions. I wish we could have a 
separate debate.
  I am opposed to the Moran substitute, which would effectively gut the 
bill of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] and the very 
important and I think very necessary reforms that he is trying to enact 
in the District of Columbia. And I am fascinated that just in terms of 
the politics of this debate, it is pretty clear, I hope, to those that 
are watching and listening, who the progressives are and who the 
conservatives are, the conservatives that are trying to defend an 
indefensible status quo.
  Do not take my word for it. Listen to the Washington Post that last 
February ran a 5 part series. I hope my colleagues saw it. For those 
that want to stand up here and defend the District of Columbia public 
schools on that particular school system, they concluded that D.C. 
public schools are ``a well-financed failure.''
  A well financed failure. A school system that employs almost two 
times more administrators than the national average. Despite spending 
between $7,500 to $9,000 per student, which is one of the highest 
averages in the country, the District of Columbia public schools have 
one of the highest, in fact the highest, the highest failure rate 
amongst their students, the lowest graduation rates, the lowest test 
scores of any inner city school district in the country.
  We are afraid to experiment by allowing a few more parents and a few 
more families a way out. Last year, because we had a break in the 
congressional schedule, I was able to coach basketball at my son's high 
school. We came into the District of Columbia and we played games at 
Gonzaga High School just a couple of blocks away, Carroll High School 
and St. Johns High School right up the road. The student bodies there 
were predominantly, if not exclusively, African American, old 
facilities.
  I just found myself saying, why cannot all District of Columbia 
families have the opportunity to send their children to these type of 
schools. Schools should be a magnet, not a trap. As the majority leader 
pointed out, schools exist to serve our children, not bureaucracies. 
Believe me, if I say nothing else that my colleagues recall today, the 
District of Columbia public school system will reform itself only when 
parents are able to choose the schools that they think are best able to 
educate their children.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise all Members that the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] has 20\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has 15\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] has 
the right to close the debate.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a question to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. He used the term 
``experiment.'' I think we all agree it is an experiment.
  My question to him is, what is this experiment going to prove at the 
end of it? What will we do in response to that experiment?
  This relates back to a dialogue that I had with the Speaker, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] on this floor two years ago. We 
have increased the bill from $42 million to $45 million. So if this 
experiment demonstrates that these private schools are excellent, is 
the Federal Government, are we willing to take taxpayer money and 
finance all 78,000 students? What is this experiment about?
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is about challenging public 
schools to improve as well as giving more opportunity to the families 
of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, what is the experiment? After we look at 
this, then what do we do next? Because it is an experiment to prove or 
disprove something.
  I will concede to the gentleman that there are good public schools 
and there are good private schools. What does it mean to take 2,000 
vouchers and give to people, 185 percent of poverty, some do well, 
others do not do well? Are we prepared to spend taxpayers' money to 
fund 78,000 kids in the District of Columbia and private schools?

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. RIGGS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, personally I am 
very prepared to make that commitment, and I think that debate is 
coming in the near future.
  But what this is all about, bottom line, is trying to create 
bootstrap improvement in the public schools and not lose another 
generation of D.C. schoolchildren.

                          ____________________