Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)

[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

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

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

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

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.

____________________