Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 153 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11526-S11544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 20
minutes of debate evenly divided on the Hutchison amendment. The Chair
recognizes the Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understood it was 30 minutes equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the Senator from Connecticut
be recognized--and this has been cleared on both sides--as in morning
business for 7 minutes.
(The remarks of Mr. Dodd are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his 7 minutes.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, so there is no misunderstanding, I have
spoken with Senator Landrieu and Senator Hutchison, and the unanimous
consent request Senator Landrieu made takes 3\1/2\ minutes off each
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the Chair's understanding.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to use 5 minutes and be
informed at the end of 5 minutes so Senator Durbin may take the floor,
and I would like to reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, my amendment attempts to be a compromise between those
who wish to take the caps off the attorney's fees for suing the
District of Columbia School District and what I think is a quite
reasonable approach, which is to keep the caps but raise them.
For the last 3 years, we have had caps on attorney's fees. That was
made necessary because of the exorbitant fees that were being charged
to the District, and that was money coming directly out of the
education system. In fact, before the caps were put in place,
attorney's fees represented $14 million of the DC school budget. Since
the caps have been put in place, we have had a figure of $3.5 million
per year average for attorney's fees, and the extra $10.5 million has
been able to go into the services we are seeking to provide for
handicapped and special needs children.
Moreover, we have been informed by the District of some of the
excessive fees that were being billed before the caps. This is billing
the school district for plaintiff's lawyer fees when the plaintiff has
been successful. One attorney before the caps individually made $1.4
million in fees in 1 year suing the District of Columbia schools.
Another law firm billed over $5 million in a single year to the
District of Columbia schools. Submission of a variety of questionable
expenses, including flowers, ski trips, and even a trip to New Orleans
ostensibly made to scout out private schools far from the District that
might be able to accommodate special needs students.
The reason we are trying to put some reasonable caps on these
attorney's fees and excessive billings is so the money will go into
education. Our amendment has a cap of $150 an hour. If a lawyer billed
2,000 hours at $150 an hour, that would be a $300,000 annual income.
So, we are not saying lawyers should not make a reasonable amount,
and we are certainly not subjecting parents to lawyers who cannot make
a living. I think $150 an hour is quite respectable. That is why we
have tried to reach out to the other side and do something that is
reasonable but not exorbitant.
We are trying to help the District of Columbia schools. We have a
letter from the superintendent of schools and the president of the
school board requesting us to take this action. They are very concerned
that millions of dollars will go into lawyer's fees rather than to
improve the services they give. In fact, they are increasing the number
of teachers for special needs students. They are increasing the amount
of medical equipment for these special needs students, and that is
exactly what we want them to do. So I am trying to be helpful to the DC
schools. Educators are the ones who can best determine need.
Our amendment also has an out; that if the District itself believes
the caps are too low, they have the ability to override this amendment
and this act of Congress and increase the fee caps, with the mayor and
the school district working together.
I think that takes care of letting the local people have a final
decision, doing what they have asked us to do in putting on reasonable
caps, as they are trying to do the very difficult job of providing a
quality education for all the students of the District of Columbia.

[[Page S11527]]

I was the chairman of the DC Subcommittee and I want so much to do
what is right for the District. I learned their needs, and I worked
with the mayor and the school representatives to try to give them the
tools to do the job they are doing. That is why I feel strongly enough
to offer this amendment so the millions of dollars that have been
actually assessed against the school, even though it was against the
law by one of the judges, will not be able to be collected. It would be
against the Federal law for retroactive fees to be collected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 5 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will stop there, and I reserve the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I believe the chair of our subcommittee has yielded her
remaining time in debate to me.
I ask the Senator from Texas a simple question, and a yes or no
answer would suffice. We are talking about limiting the fees paid to
attorneys who represent children who are trying to get into special
education. Could the Senator from Texas tell me, is there a law in her
home State of Texas limiting the fees paid to attorneys in her State
who represent children in special education cases?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the question
because, of course, there are not those kinds of limits in Texas, but
neither does the State of Texas get 20 percent of its budget from the
Federal Government. The Federal Government has the constitutional role
of making sure the District runs. That is why we have taken on 23
percent of the Federal budget.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas for responding to my
question.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. President.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is why we make sure the Federal taxpayer dollars
are used wisely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois has the time.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Texas.
The answer was no. It was a long answer, but the answer was no, in
Texas there is no limit on the amount of money paid in her home State
to attorneys representing the families of children who are seeking
special education. But she is saying with her amendment we are going to
change that rule in the District of Columbia. No other State in the
Nation has done what the Senator from Texas wants to do to the District
of Columbia.
What is this all about? It is about a law passed by Congress which
said we want to give kids with disabilities a chance for an education.
We know sometimes when they try to seek that education they have to put
up a fight. The school board says, no, we cannot put them in a special
education class. If they put up a fight, they have to hire a lawyer to
go through an administrative hearing.
The law we passed, for which many of us voted, said if the family
prevails, if the child goes into special education, the court can
decide to pay the attorney's fees for the family. Otherwise, what would
happen? Exactly what has happened in the District of Columbia right now
because of Senator Hutchison's amendment the previous years.
Poor kids from poor families cannot afford lawyers. As a result, they
do not get representation. They do not get a chance to go into special
education classes.
Senator Hutchison wants to limit the attorney's fees to stop the poor
children in the District of Columbia who are seeking special education
to have a legal voice in the process. That is just plain wrong. If the
Senator wants to repeal the Children with Disabilities Act as it
applies all across America, let her offer the amendment. I would vote
against it, but it would be a fair amendment.
What she is doing is zeroing in on this town because some Members of
the Senate and the House cannot help themselves from playing the role
of city councilman and mayor. They just love it. They will not leave to
the District of Columbia the power to make its own decisions. They want
to make the decisions for it. Whether we give the District of Columbia
10 percent or 20 percent of the money it spends, the fact is it is
responsible under the same laws as every State in the Union.
My colleagues ought to see the letters I received in opposition to
the Hutchison amendment. The Senator from Texas would have us believe
this is a battle over whether or not lawyers get paid. This letter I
received from the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities makes it
clear all of these organizations--and these are not bar associations, I
might say for the record: Easter Seals, the American
Occupational Therapy Association, Higher Education Consortium for
Special Education, Council for Learning Disabilities, Council for
Exceptional Children, Epilepsy Foundation, Helen Keller National
Center--oppose the Hutchison amendment.

If it was such a wonderful idea to stop paying the attorney's fees so
we could give money for special education, would you not think these
groups that represent disabled kids would be in favor of this
amendment?
They know better. They know what Senator Hutchison is doing. She is
taking away the legal voice of the poorest kids in the District of
Columbia.
Then we received letters from some lawyers, and the lawyers tell us
what has happened as a result of the Hutchison amendment over the last
3 years. The number of hearings filed in 1998, before the Hutchison
amendment, for special education purposes in the District of Columbia:
2,140. As of last year, that number was cut more than 50 percent to
1,011--more than a 50-percent drop.
Why? Because the poorest kids in the District of Columbia who cannot
afford to have their families pay for a lawyer cannot get to court,
cannot get into special education. Imagine the life of that small child
which has been decided at an early age, which says that whether they
have a learning disability, a physical handicap, or a mental
disability, they do not have a chance. If the District of Columbia
school system turns them down, they are finished because under Senator
Hutchison's amendment they would limit the attorneys to being paid
$3,000 and not one penny more.
I want to say something about the attorneys who are involved in this.
I made a statement earlier, but I want to make sure it is clear in the
Record. The men and women involved in this practice are doing a great
service to the families and a great service to our Nation, giving these
kids a chance for special education to receive their fullest potential.
The fact is, if we hold the fees to $3,000 as a maximum in these cases,
many attorneys cannot afford to take the case and, sadly, some taking
these cases are not prepared to deal with them because they frankly
cannot put in the time necessary to be successful.
The worst part of the Hutchison amendment is the fact that even
though each year she continues to pass this along, to stop the poor
kids in the District of Columbia from having access to special
education, the courts have said they are going to ignore it. They
continue to award attorney's fees to these firms. Now the District of
Columbia cannot pay out anything more than Senator Hutchison has
allowed them, but the amount of money that the District still owes to
these attorneys is there and continues to earn interest and grow. It is
a huge element of debt for the District of Columbia that is not being
served by the amendment of the Senator from Texas.
I urge all Members to think about the simple justice of this
situation. Senator Hutchison says she is just declaring war on trial
lawyers. Very few trial lawyers are going to take on cases involving
special education. It takes a special attorney with a special
dedication to make it happen. She may pick or choose some of the
attorney's fees, if a particular fee is excessive, but each has to be
approved by the court. If that court and that judge make a decision
under the law, we have said that is the way it will apply to Texas, to
Louisiana, and to the State of Illinois. But at this point in time, to
take this city, the Nation's Capital, and say DC children will be
denied access to special education at a time when all of the major
disability groups beg us to vote against the Hutchison amendment is
unfair.
I reserve the remainder of my time.

[[Page S11528]]

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 6 minutes 19
seconds, and the Senator from Illinois has 6 minutes 15 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, please notify me when I have used 4
minutes. I want the right to close on my amendment. I will then yield
to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. President, I will discuss some of the issues raised by the
Senator from Illinois. First, he says the number and quality of
attorneys who take special education cases has declined since the
imposition of the cap. This is not supported by the facts. The number
of attorney representations in 1997 before the caps were put into place
was over 2,000. Last year, there were 1,700 such representations. We
have not seen a steep decline in the number of attorneys willing to
take these cases. Most certainly, $125 an hour, which is what used to
be the cap, and $150, which we are proposing, makes a good living for a
person.
A lawyer working 2,000 hours in a year earns $300,000 with a $150-an-
hour fee structure. It is not as if we are looking at people who would
not be able to have a quality of life. This is a reasonable amendment.
Second, he made the statement that access to special education will
be inhibited, that the disabled students will not be able to get access
to this education. Access to special education in the District has
improved since the imposition of attorney fee caps in 1999. The backlog
of IDEA initial assessments shrank from 1,805 before the caps to 143 as
of March 2001. The backlog of hearings has been reduced from 900 to 20
during the same period. Overall expenditures for special education in
the District have increased 38 percent since the caps were imposed. The
number of new special education placements, the number of children who
have been able to be served, has increased from 8,120 before the fee
caps to 11,991 last year. The argument that children are being denied
access is not supported by the facts. More children have been able to
be accommodated because the money is going into special education and
not into the coffers of lawyers.

The Senator talks about who is against my amendment. Let's talk about
who is for my amendment. The school board of the District of Columbia
is elected by the people of the District. They are for this amendment.
They have asked the caps be left in place because they know the money
can go into education, and they are very concerned if the caps go off
and the judge who has been awarded lawyer's fees, even against the
Federal law, has said he is going to require the District to pay the
fees that were illegal, which is a convoluted reasoning, at the very
best, but nevertheless the judge has said he is going to do it.
We are told we better lift the caps so the judge can go ahead and do
it, and we are told that will be good for the children of the District.
I have not quite gotten that line of thinking. The bottom line is the
people elected by the people of the District of Columbia want the caps.
They did not ask me to raise the caps. I did that because I was trying
to come up with something that would be reasonable, to try to make sure
we were not in any way doing something to harm anyone.
My bottom line is when the superintendent of schools and the chairman
of the school board, elected by the people of the District, ask me to
keep the caps and, for Heavens' sake, not allow a retroactive use of
the District's funds to go to lawyers instead of education, to the
children of the District, it will not wash.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it should not come as a surprise the
Senator from Texas says since she put a limitation on attorney's fees,
few cases are filed. That is no surprise. The poor children in this
District looking for special education cannot get attorneys who will do
it for $3,000. What happens to those kids? They end up sitting in the
back of the classroom, falling behind. They become discouraged and drop
out. Then think of the problems that follow in their lives.
What a great solution offered by the Senator. We are keeping out of
special education kids who have learning disabilities, mental and
physical handicaps. That is the outcome. We can tighten up the system
even more, I say to the Senator from Texas, by limiting how many
children can go into special education. Then think of how much money
would be spent per pupil. That is not fair. It is not just.
When she says we ought to do this because the DC public school board
wants it done, I am sorry, I have seen the DC public schools. I have
seen reports on them for years. And I frankly think the management of
the DC public schools could be a heck of a lot better. It is one of the
reasons the District of Columbia, year in and year out, has such poor
ratings by the Annie Casey Foundation when it comes to the quality of
life for children.
Let me tell you something else the DC public schools did not tell
you. The average cost per case before the Hutchison cap for attorney's
fees, for those representing kids going into special education, was
between $7,500 and $10,000. That is the average. Senator Hutchison
gives reference to $1 million here and $1 million there. That is not
the case.
What you have here is as a result of the Hutchison amendment, the DC
city council has said we should keep in mind in voting against the
Hutchison amendment--8 out of 13 members of the city council said by
putting the Hutchison cap on the payment of fees for those who want to
get kids into special education, it makes it more difficult for the
kids to get the education to which they are entitled.
It discriminates against low-income families. Make no mistake, if you
live in the DC area and you want to get your child into special
education, and you are wealthy, you will hire a lawyer. But if you are
poor, you are out of luck under the Hutchison amendment. The effect of
the cap is to treat the children in the District of Columbia
differently than any other State, including the State of Texas.
The way to improve special education, according to the District of
Columbia city council, is programmatic. Improve the programs rather
than limit the advocacy. The fact is, the inefficiency of the DC public
school system, their inability to deal with the legal challenges that
face them, has led to this problem.
Although the Hutchison amendment in the last 3 years may have made us
feel good about limiting DC liability, we have not done it. During that
period of time, the amounts awarded to attorneys for the work they have
done have continued to grow and interest has continued to grow. There
will be a day of reckoning for the District of Columbia. It is time for
us to face reality. These are legitimate debts of the District for
attorneys who have represented some of the poorest kids in the District
of Columbia. If a cap on attorney's fees in the State of Texas is not a
good idea, it is not a good idea in the District of Columbia.
I ask Members to remember the simple fairness that if we stand for
special education and access for all children, poor and rich alike, you
cannot deny for those poor children the voice and the process they need
to get into school. The Hutchison amendment denies to these children
and their families a chance for special education. That is wrong. It is
unjust. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against the
Hutchison amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 2 minutes and 6
seconds. The Senator from Illinois has 27 seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask the Senator from Illinois if he has any further
use for his time or has he yielded back?
I want to address a couple of points made by the Senator from
Illinois. He says it is no surprise that since the caps were put in
place there were fewer lawsuits filed. No, that is not the issue. The
issue is that more students are actually being served and there is no
charge by anyone that there is a denial of due process.
In fact, before the caps went into place there were 8,120 special
need students in the DC schools. Now there are 11,191. There are only
fewer than 50 cases even left pending.
I think the District is now getting a handle on the situation. They
are putting more students in the classrooms.

[[Page S11529]]

That is because they have the money not going to lawyers but going
into education. That is why the elected representatives of the school
district have asked that the caps be left in place.
We are raising the caps to keep in step with the times. One hundred
and fifty dollars an hour certainly will get a quality lawyer. I think
that has been proven. The fact is, before the caps, these were the
kinds of abuses that the attorneys made of the system. One attorney,
before the caps, earned $1.4 million in fees alone on suing the
District schools. One law firm billed over $5 million in fees in a
single year, suing the District schools. There were submissions of
incredible expenses, asking the District to pay for flowers, for a trip
to New Orleans to supposedly scout out another school where they would
argue a child should be sent, a ski trip--my goodness.
We need some limitations on these kinds of abuses. That is what the
amendment would do.
The District is asking us to do this. It has worked well. It has
allowed the District to increase its ability to serve the special needs
students and the amendment also allows the mayor and the school
superintendent to increase the caps if they think it is necessary.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment for the DC children,
the schoolchildren of the District.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of all
amendments to H.R. 2944, the District of Columbia Appropriations bill,
the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage
of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment,
request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the
part of the Senate, with this action occurring with no intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time for the amendment has expired. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay the Hutchison amendment on the table and I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, didn't the unanimous consent agreement
say there would be a vote on my amendment? I ask there be a direct
vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, could we find out if it
said ``on'' or ``in relation to.'' If not, the motion would be in
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from Texas, the unanimous consent
agreement said the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Hutchison
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me try to clarify it. I may be confused about what
we are doing. We had committed to a vote on the Hutchison amendment,
which is supposed to be at this time. Then I am aware of no other
amendment to this bill, and we could move to final passage.
I am also aware that Senator Levin had a request for a colloquy about
a subject that he is very interested in. I wanted to bring that to the
attention of our leader.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Louisiana, I guess the question is
whether or not Senator Durbin's motion to table would be in order and
it is according to the unanimous consent agreement. I don't know if
there was some other agreement.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 329 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--49

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 2110) was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cleland
be recognized to speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes and
that following his statement, there be 30 minutes for debate with
respect to the Durbin amendment which he will offer and that the time
be equally divided and controlled and that no amendments be in order
prior to the vote on the amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I would like to amend that
so I have the same opportunity the Senator from Texas had for an up-or-
down vote.
Mr. REID. That was done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Georgia.
(The remarks of Mr. Cleland pertaining to the introduction of S. 1650
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Amendment No. 2111

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and
Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 2111.
At the appropriate place insert the following:
Sec. . The limitation on attorneys fees paid by the
District of Columbia for actions brought under I.D.E.A. (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq) (Sec. 138) shall not apply if the
plaintiff is a child who is--
(a) from a family with an annual income or less than
$17,600; or
(b) from a family where one of the parents is a disabled
veteran; or
(c) where the child has been adjudicated as neglected or
abused.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding, pursuant to the
unanimous consent request, that there are 30 minutes equally divided. I
will not use the 15 minutes on my side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DURBIN. I hope to bring this amendment to a vote quickly.
The purpose of this amendment is to dramatize for those who voted for
the Hutchison amendment the types of children who will be affected by
the limitation on attorney's fees. Without this Durbin amendment,
offered by myself and Senator Boxer from California, literally children
from families with less than poverty income, children from families
where one of the parents is a disabled veteran, or children from
families where there has

[[Page S11530]]

been adjudication that the child has been neglected or abused would
have been limited in being represented in an effort to bring them into
a special education class. These kids face learning disabilities and
other mental and physical disabilities.
The purpose of this amendment is to say we are making a clear
exception to the Hutchison limitation, and that section applies to
these three categories--children and the families as they are described
in the amendment. I sincerely hope that those who vote for this
amendment will pause and reflect on the fact that these are only three
categories of children who will be disadvantaged by the Hutchison
amendment. There are many others, I am sure, who will come to light as
we consider the impact of her amendment.
To think the District of Columbia, the Nation's Capital, would be the
one city in the United States of America where we would not give the
full protection of the laws to the poorest children is unacceptable. At
least with this amendment, children in three categories will have a
fighting chance, if they need special education to have any opportunity
to be successful in life.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be glad to yield.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know the Senator from California is
here to speak on the amendment. I think the amendment the Senator from
Illinois has offered has a great deal of merit. If we are called to
vote on it, we will be happy to vote for this amendment because it
points out some of the real problems we are trying to resolve.
My question for the Senator from Illinois is, I have some language
that I am prepared to offer requesting the GAO to study some of the
costs associated not just with the District but for other districts in
the Nation that have comparable demographics and size. Will he mind if
we discuss the possibility of including this language as we debate his
amendment and perhaps decide to vote on it if that will expedite this
process and get to a vote more quickly on this bill?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator, I consider this a friendly
amendment. I want to have a chance to review it while the Senator from
California is addressing my amendment. I hope we can find a way to deal
with this issue.
I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his
leadership this afternoon on behalf of children and families who
perhaps have the softest voice. Why do I say that? It is because these
families are struggling with children who have disabilities, who are
unable to speak for themselves, who need to get special help in school
and sometimes have to fight and struggle and work to get that help.
I believe the amendment that was just adopted by this body on a
narrow vote sends a very bad message. It sends a message that disabled
children, children in need of special education, simply are not as
important as a governmental entity that has an unlimited ability to
hire the highest paid attorneys.
In the case of the District, I have learned that, in fact, the
District does go to the private sector, does throw the best they can
against these children and against their families. There is no limit,
as my friend from Illinois pointed out, on the attorneys the school
district decides to hire. Yet this onerous amendment that was just
adopted quite narrowly treats these children differently.
We have the greatest country in the world, and in these days more
than ever we have come to recognize that every minute of every hour of
every day. One of the reasons is that before the law, everyone is
equal. That is what we stand for: Before the law, everyone is equal.
But when we say to a governmental entity it can pay whatever it wants
against a family who has a child in need of special help, but then we
restrict the kind of attorney, the number of dollars that can go to
fight that child's battle, we are setting up a playing field that is
not level.
That is why I am so happy the Senator from Illinois, with the support
of the chair of the subcommittee, Senator Landrieu, has put forward
this amendment for the two of us because what we are saying is: Let's
take a look at these children. Let's not just have some vague amendment
that says attorney's fees shall be limited. That always looks good on a
voting record, but if we dig a little bit, what do these kids look
like? A lot of them are living in poverty. A lot of them are abused and
neglected. Some have parents, one or two, who served in the military
who may be disabled. These families need special help for these special
children.
I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I look forward
to a resounding vote which will, in fact, change the amendment we just
adopted and say in these circumstances, which will cover many children
I am happy to note, we will not have this double standard.
I thank the Chair, and I reserve the remainder of the time for
Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who
yields time?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for 3 minutes to speak in behalf
of the Durbin amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Minnesota be yielded 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have not had a chance to examine
every word of the Durbin amendment, but my understanding of what the
Senator from Illinois has said is when it comes to making sure parents
of children with disabilities have legal representation if they need it
to make an appeal for their children whom they believe are not
receiving the support and education they need, in light of the
amendment of the Senator from Texas being adopted, when it comes to a
single parent or low-income or a disabled Vietnam vet or veteran and
other such categories, it is clear these families absolutely should not
be without legal representation. Therefore, the amendment of the
Senator from Texas would not apply.
My colleague from Illinois has made an appeal to Senators to avoid
the harshness, to make sure there is the legal representation for
families who need it, to make sure we are on the side of vulnerable
children and vulnerable families.
This amendment is compassionate. This amendment goes directly to what
is at issue. I hope there will be 100 votes for the amendment offered
by the Senator from Illinois. I add my support.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are ready to vote on this amendment.
The Senator from Illinois perhaps has some additional time, but if
there are no other speakers, if the Senator from Illinois wants to call
for the yeas and nays, we probably can have this vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I want to make certain the other side has the
opportunity, if they want, to speak. Otherwise, I am prepared to yield
all my time back and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Before I yield the time, I want to see if there is anyone
on the other side--the Senator from Texas or others--who wants to speak
to this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time under the
unanimous consent request, and I ask unanimous consent that all time on
this

[[Page S11531]]

amendment be yielded back so we can go to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2111. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Are there any other
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 330 Leg.]

YEAS--73

Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--26

Allard
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Craig
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Miller
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--1

Hagel

The amendment (No. 2111) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2112

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an
amendment numbered 2112.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for mandatory advanced electronic information for
air cargo and passengers entering the United States)

On page 68, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

SEC. 137. MANDATORY ADVANCED ELECTRONIC INFORMATION FOR AIR
CARGO AND PASSENGERS ENTERING THE UNITED
STATES.

(a) Air Cargo Information.--
(1) In general.--Section 431(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1431(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(b) Production of Manifest.--Any
manifest'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Production of Manifest.--
``(1) In general.--Any manifest'';
(B) by indenting the margin of paragraph (1), as so
designated, two ems; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Additional information.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to any other requirement
under this section, every air carrier required to make entry
or obtain clearance under the customs laws of the United
States, the pilot, the master, operator, or owner of such
carrier (or the authorized agent of such owner or operator)
shall provide by electronic transmission cargo manifest
information specified in subparagraph (B) in advance of such
entry or clearance in such manner, time, and form as the
Secretary shall prescribe. The Secretary may exclude any
class of air carrier for which the Secretary concludes the
requirements of this subparagraph are not necessary.
``(B) Information required.--The information specified in
this subparagraph is as follows:
``(i) The port of arrival or departure, whichever is
applicable.
``(ii) The carrier code, prefix code, or, both.
``(iii) The flight or trip number.
``(iv) The date of scheduled arrival or date of scheduled
departure, whichever is applicable.
``(v) The request for permit to proceed to the destination,
if applicable.
``(vi) The numbers and quantities from the master and house
air waybill or bills of lading.
``(vii) The first port of lading of the cargo.
``(viii) A description and weight of the cargo.
``(ix) The shippers name and address from all air waybills
or bills of lading.
``(x) The consignee name and address from all air waybills
or bills of lading.
``(xi) Notice that actual boarded quantities are not equal
to air waybill or bills of lading quantities.
``(xii) Transfer or transit information.
``(xiii) Warehouse or other location of the cargo.
``(xiv) Such other information as the Secretary, by
regulation, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure
aviation transportation safety pursuant to the laws enforced
or administered by the Customs Service.
``(3) Availability of information.--Information provided
under paragraph (2) may be shared with other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government, including the Department
of Transportation and the law enforcement agencies of the
Federal Government, for purposes of protecting the national
security of the United States.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Subparagraphs (A) and (C) of
section 431(d)(1) of such Act are each amended by inserting
before the semicolon ``or subsection (b)(2)''.
(b) Passenger Information.--Part II of title IV of the
Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by inserting after section 431
the following new section:

``SEC. 432. PASSENGER AND CREW MANIFEST INFORMATION REQUIRED
FOR AIR CARRIERS.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is an
amendment I have offered on two previous appropriations bills. I will
not go into a long and tortured explanation. The Advance Passenger
Information System should now be in the law. But because of a
jurisdictional issue that arose a couple of weeks ago, it is not in the
law. In a couple minutes, I will explain exactly what it is.
I just came from S. 207 where I am a conferee on the aviation
security issue. That conference is ongoing right now. We are dealing
with the issue of aviation security which is of great importance to all
people in this country. How do we make flying more safe and more
secure? We are doing that because of the concern about terrorism.
One of the issues in dealing with terrorism has been to try to make
mandatory something that has been voluntary with respect to all
airlines that are carrying passengers into this country. Some 78
million people fly into this country each year as guests of our
country. They come on visas. They are guests of the United States. Most
of them are precleared. Their names are provided by airline carriers
under what is called the Advance Passenger Information System, APIS.
They are provided to us in advance so we can run

[[Page S11532]]

the names of the people who are coming from other countries against a
list that the FBI has, that the Customs Service has, and that 21
different Federal agencies have. It is a list to determine whether any
of these people who are coming into the country are known or suspected
terrorists or are people who are acquainted with and associated with
terrorists because we don't want them to come to this country. People
who come in are guests of ours with visas. But if they are on a list of
suspected people who associate with terrorists or who are suspected of
terrorist acts, we don't want them in this country.
Eighty-five percent of the people coming into the United States have
their names submitted to this Advance Passenger Information System.
Fifteen percent do not.
Among the airlines that do not comply with this voluntary system are
airlines from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and, until last
week, the country of Kuwait. I could name others.
One should ask the question: Wouldn't we want passenger information
from those airlines flying here from that part of the world? The answer
is clearly yes. The head of the Customs Service, the Bush
administration, and others say this ought to be made mandatory. I
agree.
I offered the amendment in the Senate to make it mandatory on the
counterterrorism bill. The Senate approved that amendment, and we
would, therefore, have mandatory information about who is coming into
this country, and that would be applied to the various devices we have
in the Customs Service and the FBI to check these names. It went to
conference with the other body, and it was kicked out of conference
because of jurisdictional issues. Some believed committee
jurisdictional issues were more important than national security, so
they kicked it out.
I stated that I would offer it to the bills that are on the floor of
the Senate until we get it passed and into law. It should have been on
the counterterrorism bill the President signed. Since the day the
President signed that bill, a bill that contains this provision,
180,000 people have come into this country whose names have not been
precleared under the Advance Passenger Information System. A fair
number of them came from Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
and others.

Does that improve security in this country? In my judgment, no. We
ought to do the right thing. This is not about committee jurisdiction;
it is about national security. In my judgment, we ought to say to all
foreign carriers and airlines coming into this country and bringing our
foreign guests that if they do not subscribe to mandatory submission of
names under the Advance Passenger Information System, they are welcome
to land elsewhere; they may not land at an airport in this country.
That is all my amendment does. It is supported by the administration.
It was requested by the administration and should now be law, but is
not because we had a squabble here a couple of weeks ago and it was
kicked out in conference. I have offered it previously. I offer it
again today. My understanding is that it will be approved by a voice
vote. I also intend to offer it in the conference on aviation security,
of which I am a member and which is now meeting in S. 207.
I ask for immediate consideration of my amendment.
I yield the floor.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we have no further debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2112) was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we are ready to move to final passage.
There are no other outstanding amendments that will require a vote.

Amendment No. 2113

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have an amendment by Senator DeWine
and myself referencing the need for a GAO report. I ask unanimous
consent that it be agreed to at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 2113) was agreed to.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 68, after line 4, insert:
Sec. . The GAO, in consultation with the relevant agencies
and members of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
on DC Appropriations, shall submit by January 2, 2002 a
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and
the Senate and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives detailing the awards in judgment rendered in
the District of Columbia that were in excess of the cap
imposed by prior appropriations acts in effect during the
fiscal year when the work was performed, or when payment was
requested for work previously performed, in actions brought
against the District of Columbia Public Schools under the
Individuals with Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et
seq.). Provided further, that such report shall include a
comparison of the cause of actions and judgments rendered
against public school districts of comparable demographics
and population as the District.

FOOD AND FRIENDS

Mr. SARBANES. Will the distinguished floor manager yield for the
purpose of a colloquy with Senator Mikulski and myself regarding Food
and Friends, a nonprofit organization that provides meals to adults and
children battling AIDS and other life-threatening illnesses in the
Washington metropolitan region?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. For the past 12 years, Food and Friends has been
providing an invaluable and unique service to people in Washington, DC,
eight counties of Maryland and seven counties in Virginia, living with
HIV/AIDS and other life-challenging illnesses. The group's network of
over 700 volunteers and some 45 chefs, registered dieticians and other
staff provide home-delivered meals and groceries, nutrition counseling,
as well as friendship and care to more than 1,300 clients daily and the
number of people seeking these services continues to grow dramatically.
In order to accommodate the service demands, Food and Friends has
embarked on a $6 million capital campaign to construct a new facility
to serve its clients. We recognize that the committee was faced with
many significant funding demands in this bill and limited allocations
and could not accommodate the $2 million in funding provided by the
House. We hold out hope that, as the Chairwoman and the other conferees
negotiate with our colleagues in the House, you could find some way to
provide funding needed by Food and Friends.
Ms. MIKULSKI. We would not make this request unless we were truly
convinced of the need and the terrific work that Food and Friends does.
Food and Friends serves individuals from diverse economic backgrounds,
but 64 percent of their clients live on incomes of less than $550 per
month. With the cost of medication and treatments for critically ill
individuals estimated at between $500 and $1,000 per month, the
services provided by Food and Friends are critical. This funding would
allow the organization to serve more than 2,000 clients daily. The
organization has already raised $1.6 million for this initiative and
expects to raise an additional $2 million, but needs Federal support to
complete the project. For me this is a hand-up to Food and Friends, not
a hand-out.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senators from Maryland. I am certainly
aware of this wonderful organization and this project and the good work
that they do delivering meals to people suffering from terminal
illnesses and AIDS. I know that the Senators from Maryland are very
concerned about this matter and I will certainly be willing to work
with you both to see if we can include this worthy project in
conference with the House.
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair and look forward to working with her.
Ms. MIKULSKI. As an appropriator, I appreciate the efforts of the
chairman, and also look forward to working with her.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, since the late-1980s, I have urged the
mayors of the District of Columbia and Commissioners of the DC Taxicab
Commission toward implementation of recommendations from numerous
District of Columbia studies to replace the current taxicab zone fare
with a meter

[[Page S11533]]

system. According to the nationwide Taxicab, Limousine, and Paratransit
Association, the District of Columbia is the only major city in the
Nation where taxi fares are calculated by a zone system rather than a
meter system. The use of the zone system is especially unfair to our
great number of out-of-town tourists who have to cope with a
complicated, confusing zone fare system with no basis on which to judge
the accuracy of a particular fare. In my own experience, as a DC
resident, I have encountered at least 10 different cab fares for the
exact same trip to and from National Airport. A metered system would
eliminate this problem.
There is a lot of correspondence that has transpired over the years
on this matter. I would like to share with the Senate the letter I
recently received from Mayor Williams. I would also like to include
earlier correspondence I received from Representative Eleanor Holmes
Norton, who I have kept informed at every stage of the taxi meter
issue, as well as several letters from the Barry and Kelly
administrations. There have been broken promise after broken promise.
Mayor Williams' letter sets out a course of action. If it is not
followed, I intend to bring this matter to a head next year--after two
decades of broken promises.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me just say from the outset that I
appreciate my colleague's comments. The District of Columbia is the
only major city that does not have a meter system in place. The current
zone system compromises the integrity of the DC taxicab system. The
apparent variance among cab fares to the same destination shows how the
current system can be misunderstood and even abused. I deeply
appreciate Senator Levin's decision to withhold an amendment at this
time based on the mayor's letter. And I certainly understand that
Senator Levin will be back with his amendment if meters are not in
place, as indicated in Mayor Williams' letter, early next year, and I
intend to support Senator Levin's efforts to end the current
intolerably confusing situation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letters to
which I referred be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

October 10, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: In accordance with your request, I am
writing to advise you of the status of the introduction of a
meter system for District of Columbia taxicabs. Let me state
at the outset that I support a change from the current zone
system to a meter system. A proposal to that effect was
approved by the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission and
transmitted to the Council of the District of Columbia for
review in 1999. At that time, the Council requested that the
proposal be withdrawn and resubmitted with more detailed
information on the potential impact of increased fares on the
riding public.
Since that time, the District of Columbia Taxicab
Commission has developed a proposed fare structure and
conducted the analysis requested by the Council. In addition,
the Chairman of the Commission has held a number of meetings
with drivers, individual taxicab owners, taxicab companies,
and others in the industry to explain the impact of the
planned change and allay any fears regarding implementation
of the new system. The most recent of those meetings was held
last week.
It now appears that the Commission is prepared to act on
the proposal. The matter is expected to be referred to the
Commission's Panel on Rates and Rules for a vote as early as
next week and will thereafter be acted upon by the full
Commission and transmitted to the Council for final approval.
It is anticipated that meters could be required in District
taxicabs by early next year.
I thank you for your interest in this matter and for
sharing my commitment to improve the District's taxicab
industry. Should you require any additional information, do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams.
____

March 15, 1999.
Hon. Linda W. Cropp,
Chairman, Council of the District of Columbia, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Cropp: I am transmitting for the
consideration of the Council of the District of Columbia
(Council) a proposed resolution entitled the ``District of
Columbia Taxicab Commission Metered System for Determining
Fares Approval Resolution of 1999.'' The proposed resolution
is submitted in accordance with D.C. Law 6-97, the ``District
of Columbia Taxicab Commission Establishment Act of 1985,''
as amended, specifically, D.C. Code Sec. 40-1707(b)(1)(B)
(1998 Repl. Vol.). The law provides that the Commission's
Panel on Rates and Rules shall not authorize a metered system
for determining taxicab fares without a 60-day period of
Council review of the proposal.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please
contact George W. Crawford at the Taxicab Commission.
I urge the Council to take prompt and favorable action to
approve the Commission's proposal for the use of meters for
determining taxicab fares at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.
____

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 22, 1998.
Senator Carl Levin,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Carl: Thank you for coming in to see me last week
regarding the failure of the District to adopt a meter system
for cabs, following the recommendations of several studies. I
very much appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter
with me and to give the District the opportunity to consider
the matter before you consider any action. I write to provide
you with a status report on my efforts since our meeting.
I have spoken directly with the new Chair of the Taxicab
Commission, Chairman Novell Sullivan and with the Chair of
the D.C. City Council, Linda Cropp. Chairman Sullivan has
agreed to submit the matter to the full Commission at its
next regularly scheduled meeting on October 6th to consider
whether the District should adopt a meter system. Although
Chairman Sullivan could not say what the outcome of the vote
will be, he is eager, as I know you are, to resolve this
matter without further study or delay. The Commission's
recommendation must be submitted to the City Council for its
final review and approval. I have assigned my Legislative
Director, Jon Bouker, to follow-up with the Commission's
General Counsel, Mr. George Crawford, and with staff from the
office of City Council Chair Linda Cropp to ensure that the
process moves forward as expeditiously as possible.
I hope that this information is responsive to your
concerns. I appreciate that you want the District and the
Taxicab Commission to resolve this matter at the local level.
As always, if I can be of further assistance on this or any
other matter concerning the District of Columbia, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Holmes Norton.
____

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 20, 1998.
Re Taxicab Issue Follow-up.

Jackie Parker,
Deputy Legislative Director (Senator Carl Levin).
This memo is a follow-up to our recent conversations on the
taxicab issue. As you know, Senator Levin came in to see the
Congresswoman regarding the D.C. Taxicab Commission's
reluctance to forward to the City Council the previous
Commission's recommendation to move to a meter system for
D.C. cabs. Following the meeting with Senator Levin, the
Congresswoman called Taxicab Commission Chair Novell Sullivan
and City Council Chair Linda Cropp. Council Chair Cropp
confirmed that the new Taxicab Commission had not yet
forwarded a recommendation to the full Council for its
consideration. However, Commission Chair Sullivan agreed to
schedule the meters issue for a vote before the full
Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting. That vote
occurred on October 6, 1998, and the Commission voted
unanimously to recommend meters to the Council. Once the
Council receives the transmission (after the Corporation
Counsel reviews the legal sufficiency of the transmission and
the Mayor gives his approval), it has 60 days to decide
whether or not it will approve the recommendations of the
Commission. The Commission does not have the authority, on
its own, to effectuate a change to a meter system for D.C.
cabs.
I hope that this information is useful. Please do not
hesitate to call me if you have any further questions.

Jon Bouker,

Legislative Director and Counsel
(Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton).
____

Government of the District of Columbia, Taxicab
Commission,
Washington, DC December 1, 1998.
Jackie Parker,
Senator Levin's Office.
This is to inform you that the Office of the Corporation
Counsel has approved the Taxicab Commission's proposal to
covert to a meter system for determing fares. The Office of
Chief Financial Officer is reviewing the proposal for fiscal
impact on the District. It is anticipated that the proposal
will be transmitted to the City Council within the next few
days. Should you need additional information, please let me
know.
George W. Crawford,
General Counsel and Secretary.

[[Page S11534]]

____
Government of the District of Columbia, Taxicab
Commission,
Washington, DC September 9, 1993.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Levin: Thank you for taking time from your
very demanding schedule to meet with me on August 5th. Let me
assure you again that both Mayor Kelly and I understand and
share your concerns about taxicab service in the District of
Columbia. The Mayor has directed me to resolve the long
standing issues and problems as quickly as possible. We
sincerely appreciate your support and patience as we work
toward this goal.
When we met, you requested a description of specific
strategies we are undertaking, including timeframes, to
fulfill congressional mandates and to improve regulation of
the taxicab industry. Our strategies will accomplish three
major goals by the end of fiscal year 1994:
(1) establishment of an appropriate mechanism--zones,
meters, a new technology or a combination--for calculating
taxi fares;
(2) development of a rate-setting methodology; and
(3) improvement of the Commission's regulatory and
enforcement efforts.
Funding for these initiatives is being provided by fees
imposed by the Commission for the Taxicab Assessment Fund; no
appropriated funds will be used. Descriptions of the
strategies and timeframes for each goal are enclosed.
Much needs to be done, and I am excited about the prospects
for improving taxi service in the District. My plans and
goals for the Taxicab Commission, and an overview of the
issues facing the Commission, are provided in my testimony
that was recently submitted to the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. A copy of that
testimony is also enclosed for your information.
Let me thank you again for your long-standing support of
the District of Columbia, and your continuing interest in the
District's taxicab policies and services. I am available to
you and your staff if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Sincerely,
Karen Jones Herbert,
Chairperson.
____

The District of Columbia,

Washington, DC, August 18, 1993.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Russell Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: I understand you recently met with
Karen Herbert, our new chairperson of the D.C. Taxicab
Commission. Ms. Herbert has developed an ambitious, but long
overdue reform agenda for the D.C. Taxicab Commission. In
addition, she has taken steps to improve driver training and
testing, complaint resolution and enforcement activities.
I fully understand your concerns and frustrations and want
to assure you that we are aggressively seeking consultants
who specialize in taxicab regulation and transportation
economics to assist us in developing a rate methodology and a
definitive analysis of meters versus zones. The selection is
scheduled to be made before the end of September and I will
be certain that you will be provided with a timeline that
will enable you to track the progress of this effort.
In the months ahead, I intend to work closely with Ms.
Herbert and will be pursuing initiatives designed to make a
visible difference in our regulation of the vehicle for hire
industry. Your continued interest and support of this issue
are helpful and have been greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Sharon Pratt Kelly.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the FY 2002
District of Columbia appropriations bill. I want to congratulate
Senator Landrieu and Senator DeWine for their hard work in crafting
this annual appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. This is
an important piece of legislation and they have done their best to help
ensure that the District of Columbia gets the resources it needs to run
our Nation's capital.
In addition to many important policy provisions and essential funding
provisions, this legislation removes several restrictions Congress has
placed upon the District of Columbia during the last several years.
These congressional provisions have prevented locally passed laws and
initiatives from being implemented even with the use of local funds.
With the leadership of Senator Landrieu, the underlying legislation
takes the necessary steps to correct those past wrongs.
I am particularly pleased with Senator Landrieu's leadership in
lifting the restriction limiting the autonomy of the local government
in the District of Columbia and the rights of domestic partners who
reside here. For the past 9 years, Congress has prohibited the District
from using Federal or local funds to enact the locally passed Health
Care Benefits Expansion Act. This law, passed by the D.C. City Council
in 1992, would allow domestic partners to register with the Mayor's
office. The Health Care Benefits Expansion Act would require all health
care facilities to grant domestic partners visitation rights, and allow
District employees to purchase health insurance at their own cost for
domestic partners.
This law recognizes the legal and civil rights of domestic partners
in the District of Columbia and is similar to laws passed by more than
100 jurisdictions and city governments throughout this country--
including my own State of Vermont. Vermont passed its version of a
domestic partnership law for health benefits in 1994. Last year, our
State went even further when it took the bold and courageous step of
extending the same legal State benefits already enjoyed by married
couples to same sex couples.
This restriction Congress placed on the D.C. Government sent the
wrong message to District residents and local officials by telling the
people of Washington, DC, that the U.S. Senate knows best how local
officials should spend their local dollars. This restriction sent the
wrong message to the American public by disregarding the rights of
domestic partners. I am pleased that the Senate has not continued down
the unfortunate path of dictating social policy for the District of
Columbia.
During consideration of the D.C. appropriations bill last month, the
House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment to remove the ban
on the use of local funds to implement the Health Benefits Expansion
Act. During the House debate on the legislation, the provision
prevailed, despite an effort similar to the one before us today to
reinstate the ban on local funds. Our colleagues in the House have
spoken on this measure, and the Senate has concurred.
This is a challenging time for our entire Nation. During this time,
leaders at all levels of government--especially our local leaders--are
working to ensure the safety and preparedness of their communities.
Mayor Anthony Williams and the local government of the District of
Columbia should be provided the same opportunity to perform those
duties, and others, as are enjoyed by other cities and jurisdictions
throughout the Nation. With the hard work of Senator Landrieu, the
underlying bill recognizes the rights of D.C. residents and their
elected officials to debate and decide for themselves the same policy
questions that each of the states and cities in our country may debate
and decide for themselves.
The issue of the rights of domestic partners--like rights for women,
racial minorities, and people with disabilities--is one of basic civil
rights for all people. Individuals should be evaluated on the basis of
what they can offer and what they can contribute--not on irrelevant
considerations like their race, gender or sexual orientation. It is a
question of fundamental fairness. The United States Congress did not
interfere with Vermont's approach to providing equal access to health
insurance benefits, or with any of the other cities and localities
throughout the country that passed their own laws governing domestic
partnership. I strongly believe that Congress should follow its own
example set in those instances, and should not treat the District of
Columbia any differently.
Again, I applaud Senator Landrieu for her leadership in drafting this
bill and I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of the FY 2002
District of Columbia appropriations bill.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as we move to final passage on this
bill, I again thank my ranking member for his very extraordinary and
dedicated work over the weeks and months to bring this bill to the
floor and to work out many important and challenging issues. Together,
we have tried to focus our efforts on post-control board financial
discipline and laying a foundation so that the District, which is in a
surplus today because of a lot of hard work that has been done, will
remain in a surplus. Together, we have tried to enhance local
decisionmaking, where appropriate. I believe we have made a lot of
progress along that line.
In addition, particularly with Senator DeWine's excellent leadership,
we are reforming the child welfare system

[[Page S11535]]

in the District and working with the mayor and the local government
officials to do that. We have put significant investments in this bill
to accomplish that end.
In addition, because of the September 11 attack, we have provided
additional resources for the mayor and the local government and for
regional public officials--our own Senators representing Virginia and
Maryland--of course, to be a part of that to enhance the security of
the District and this region.
Finally, we have together made some tremendous headway in providing
resources to create more excellence in the public schools here in DC
and reform that system, as well as to step up the environment and
children's health with some of the projects with which Senator DeWine
has been particularly helpful.
In closing, I again thank publicly the mayor and the city council
chairperson, Linda Cropp, and all of the members of the city council
who have been so helpful in working with us on this bill.
I would like to acknowledge the work of the District chief financial
officer, Dr. Gandhi, and particularly his staff, Sam Kaiser, for their
work in putting the local portion of this bill together.
I want to recognize Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. She
continues to work with us almost daily on these issues. I thank her,
and also the shadow Senator from the District, Paul Strauss.
Our staff members, Cathleen Strottman, Kate Eltrich, Kevin Avery,
Chuck Kieffer, and Mary Dietrich on the Republican side have been
terrific in their help bringing us to this point.
I have no further remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Landrieu,
for doing a great job on this bill. This is a bill that will make a
difference for people of the District of Columbia, particularly
children of the District.
I thank Senator Landrieu and her staff, Chuck Kieffer and Kate
Eltrich, for their hard work on this bill.
I also thank my appropriations team, particularly Mary Dietrich, who
has been working hard on this bill for a long time, as well as Stan
Skocki from my team.
I also commend and thank the other members of our subcommittee:
Senator Hutchison, Senator Durbin, and Senator Reed.
Mr. President, as Senator Landrieu has indicated, this was a
bipartisan effort. This bill makes a downpayment and is a real
beginning on what we said we were going to do several years ago. In
Congress, we took on the responsibility of trying to improve the court
system, specifically the court system that deals with our young people.
I do not have to remind anyone in this Chamber of the tragedy of the
children's system in the District of Columbia--headline after headline,
story after story, tragedy after tragedy, of children who have died in
the system in the District of Columbia. This bill provides the money to
begin to change that system.
Senator Landrieu and I have also been working, along with some of our
other colleagues, to get a family court bill passed. Money in this bill
will go a long way to making the changes that we have outlined in that
family court bill.
This bill we are about to vote on also provides some significant
money for Children's Hospital in the District of Columbia, which serves
not only children who come from the District but serves children who
come from many States.

It also provides money for the Safe Kids Program, a program that
saves lives. I am convinced the money we will provide will help to save
the lives of young children in the District of Columbia.
We also provide money for the Green Door Program, a mental health
program of which Senator Domenici has been a strong supporter.
Finally, the bill provides, as Senator Landrieu indicated, some much
needed money and resources to tie our communications system together in
the District of Columbia. That need has been apparent for some time.
Certainly, after the events of September 11, it is even more apparent
and more obvious. So this bill provides money to do that as well.
I, again, thank my colleague for her great work on the bill. I urge
my colleagues to vote aye, to pass the bill. I hope we will be able to
work any differences out with the House fairly quickly and get this
bill on to the President.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments to be
offered. I believe we are ready for third reading of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the
bill pass?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDIING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 24, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 331 Leg.]

YEAS--75

Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thompson
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--24

Allard
Brownback
Bunning
Craig
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Helms
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Thomas
Thurmond

NOT VOTING--1

Kerry

The bill (H.R. 2944) was passed, as follows:

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2944)
entitled ``An Act 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, 2002, and for other purposes.'', do pass with the
following amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

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, 2002, and
for other purposes, namely:

FEDERAL FUNDS

Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia, to be
deposited into a dedicated account, for a nationwide program
to be administered by the Mayor, for District of Columbia
resident tuition support, $17,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That such funds, including any
interest accrued thereon, may be used on behalf of eligible
District of Columbia residents to pay an amount based upon
the difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at
public institutions of higher education, or to pay up to
$2,500 each year at eligible private institutions of higher
education: Provided further, That the awarding of such funds
may be prioritized on the basis of a resident's academic
merit, the income and need of eligible students and such
other factors as may be authorized: Provided further, That
the District of Columbia government shall establish a
dedicated account for the Resident Tuition Support Program
that shall consist of the Federal funds appropriated to the
Program in this Act and any subsequent appropriations, any
unobligated balances from prior fiscal years, and any
interest

[[Page S11536]]

earned in this or any fiscal year: Provided further, That the
account shall be under the control of the District of
Columbia Chief Financial Officer who may use those funds
solely for the purposes of carrying out the Resident Tuition
Support Program: Provided further, That the Resident Tuition
Support Program Office and the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer shall provide a quarterly financial report to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives for these funds showing, by object class, the
expenditures made and the purpose therefor: Provided further,
That not more than seven percent of the amount provided
herein for this program may be used for administrative
expenses.

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts

For salaries and expenses for the District of Columbia
Courts, $140,181,000, to be allocated as follows: for the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, $8,003,000, of which
not to exceed $1,500 is for official reception and
representation expenses; for the District of Columbia
Superior Court, $72,694,000, of which not to exceed $1,500 is
for official reception and representation expenses; for the
District of Columbia Court System, $31,634,000, of which not
to exceed $1,500 is for official reception and representation
expenses; and $27,850,000 for capital improvements for
District of Columbia courthouse facilities: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts under
this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the Office of
Management and Budget and obligated and expended in the same
manner as funds appropriated for salaries and expenses of
other Federal agencies, with payroll and financial services
to be provided on a contractual basis with the General
Services Administration (GSA), said services to include the
preparation of monthly financial reports, copies of which
shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President and to
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 of the House
of Representatives: Provided further, That after providing
notice to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives, the District of Columbia Courts may
reallocate not more than $1,000,000 of the funds provided
under this heading among the items and entities funded under
such heading: Provided further, That of this amount not less
than $23,315,000 is for activities authorized under S. 1382,
the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001: Provided
further, That of the funds made available for the District of
Columbia Superior Court, $6,603,000 may remain available
until September 30, 2003: Provided further, That of the funds
made available for the District of Columbia Court System,
$485,000 may remain available until September 30, 2003:
Provided further, That of the funds made available for
capital improvements, $21,855,000 may remain available until
September 30, 2003.

Administrative Provisions

Section 11-1722(a), District of Columbia Code, is amended
in the first sentence by striking ``, subject to the
supervision of the Executive Officer''.
Section 11-1723(a)(3), District of Columbia Code, is
amended by striking ``and the internal auditing of the
accounts of the courts''.
The Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Act of 1996 (D.C.
Code, sec. 3-421 et seq. (1981 Ed., 1999 Supp.) as amended by
Public Law 106-113, Sec. 160 and Public Law 106-554,
Sec. 1(a)(4), H.R. 5666, Division A, Chapter 4, Sec. 403) is
amended: (a) in section 2 (D.C. Code, sec. 3-421 (1981 Ed.,
1999 Supp.)), as amended by District of Columbia Law 13-172,
Sec. 202(a) (except for paragraph (6)); (b) in section 7(c)
(D.C. Code, sec. 3-426(c) (1981 Ed., 1999 Supp.)), as amended
by District of Columbia Law 13-172, Sec. 202(b); (c) in
section 8 (D.C. Code, sec. 3-427 (1981 Ed., 1999 Supp.)), as
amended by District of Columbia Law 13-172, Sec. 202(c); and
(d) in section 16(e) (D.C. Code, sec. 3-435(e) (1981 Ed.,
1999 Supp.)), to read as follows:
``(e) All compensation and attorneys' fees awarded under
this chapter shall be paid from, and subject to, the
availability of monies in the Fund. No more than five percent
of the total amount of monies in the Fund shall be used to
pay administrative costs necessary to carry out this
chapter.''.
Section 11-2604, District of Columbia Code, is amended:
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``50'' and inserting
``75''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``1300'' each time it appears and inserting
``1900'';
(B) by striking ``2450'' each time it appears and inserting
``3600''.
Section 16-2326.1(b), District of Columbia Code (1997
Repl.), is amended--
(1) by striking ``1,100'' each time it appears and
inserting ``1,600'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``1,500'' and inserting
``2,200''; and
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``750'' and inserting
``1,100''.
Section 16(d) of the Victims of Violent Crime Compensation
Act of 1996 (sec. 4-515(d), D.C. Official Code), as amended
by section 403 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001
(as enacted into law by section 1(a)(4) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2001), is amended--
(1) by striking ``in excess of $250,000''; and
(2) by striking ``and approved by'' and all that follows
and inserting a period.
These amendments shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of section 403 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations
Act, 2001.

Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts

For payments authorized under section 11-2604 and section
11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under
the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act), payments for
counsel appointed in proceedings in the Family Division of
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under chapter
23 of title 16, D.C. Code, and payments for counsel
authorized under section 21-2060, D.C. Code (relating to
representation provided under the District of Columbia
Guardianship, Protective Proceedings, and Durable Power of
Attorney Act of 1986), $39,311,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the funds provided in this Act under
the heading ``Federal Payment to the District of Columbia
Courts'' (other than the $27,850,000 provided under such
heading for capital improvements for District of Columbia
courthouse facilities) may also be used for payments under
this heading: Provided further, That in addition to the funds
provided under this heading, the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration in the District of Columbia may use funds
provided in this Act under the heading ``Federal Payment to
the District of Columbia Courts'' (other than the $27,850,000
provided under such heading for capital improvements for
District of Columbia courthouse facilities), to make payments
described under this heading for obligations incurred during
any fiscal year: Provided further, That funds provided under
this heading shall be administered by the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
this appropriation shall be apportioned quarterly by the
Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in
the same manner as funds appropriated for expenses of other
Federal agencies, with payroll and financial services to be
provided on a contractual basis with the General Services
Administration (GSA), said services to include the
preparation of monthly financial reports, copies of which
shall be submitted directly by GSA to the President and to
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 of the House
of Representatives.

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee
Operations

For salaries and expenses of the District of Columbia
Corrections Trustee, $32,700,000 for the administration and
operation of correctional facilities and for the
administrative operating costs of the Office of the
Corrections Trustee, as authorized by section 11202 of the
National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 712) of
which $1,000,000 is to fund an initiative to improve case
processing in the District of Columbia criminal justice
system, $2,500,000 to remain available until September 30,
2003 is for building renovation or space acquisition required
to accommodate functions transferred from the Lorton
Correctional Complex, and $2,000,000 to remain available
until September 30, 2003, is to be transferred to the
appropriate agency for the closing of the sewage treatment
plant and the removal of underground storage tanks at the
Lorton Correctional Complex: Provided, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, funds appropriated in this Act
for the District of Columbia Corrections Trustee shall be
apportioned quarterly by the Office of Management and Budget
and obligated and expended in the same manner as funds
appropriated for salaries and expenses of other Federal
agencies.

Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
for the District of Columbia

(Including Transfer of Funds)

For salaries and expenses, including the transfer and hire
of motor vehicles, of the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, as
authorized by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33; 111
Stat. 712), $147,300,000, of which $13,015,000 shall remain
available until expended, and of which not to exceed $5,000
is for official receptions related to offender and defendant
support programs; of which $94,112,000 shall be for necessary
expenses of Community Supervision and Sex Offender
Registration, to include expenses relating to supervision of
adults subject to protection orders or provision of services
for or related to such persons; $20,829,000 shall be
transferred to the Public Defender Service; and $32,359,000
shall be available to the Pretrial Services Agency: Provided,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, all amounts
under this heading shall be apportioned quarterly by the
Office of Management and Budget and obligated and expended in
the same manner as funds appropriated for salaries and
expenses of other Federal agencies: Provided further, That
notwithstanding chapter 12 of title 40, United States Code,
the Director may acquire by purchase, lease, condemnation, or
donation, and renovate as necessary, Building Number 17, 1900
Massachusetts Avenue, Southeast, Washington, District of
Columbia, or such other site as the Director of the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency may determine as
appropriate to house or supervise offenders and defendants,
with funds made available by this Act: Provided further, That
the Director is authorized to accept and use gifts in the
form of in-kind contributions of space and hospitality to
support offender and defendant programs, and equipment and
vocational training services to educate and train offenders
and defendants.

[[Page S11537]]

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia for Security Costs Related
to the Presence of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia

For a payment to the District of Columbia to reimburse the
District for certain security expenses related to the
presence of the Federal Government in the District of
Columbia, $16,058,000: Provided, That a detailed report of
actual and estimated expenses incurred shall be provided to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives no later than June 15, 2002: Provided
further, That of this amount, $3,406,000 shall be made
available for reimbursement of planning and related expenses
incurred by the District of Columbia in anticipation of
providing security for the planned meetings in September 2001
of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in the
District of Columbia: Provided further, That the Mayor and
the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia shall
develop, in consultation with the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, the United States Secret Service, the
United States Capitol Police, the United States Park Police,
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, regional
transportation authorities, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the Governor of the State of Maryland and the
Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the county
executives of contiguous counties of the region and the
respective state and local law enforcement entities in the
region an integrated emergency operations plan for the
District of Columbia in cases of national security events,
including terrorist threats, protests, or other unanticipated
events: Provided further, That such plan shall include a
response to attacks or threats of attacks using biological or
chemical agents: Provided further, That the city shall submit
this plan to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate
and the House of Representatives no later than January 2,
2002: Provided further, That the Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia shall provide quarterly reports to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives on the use of the funds under this
heading, beginning no later than January 2, 2002.

Federal Payment to the Thurgood Marshall Academy Charter School

For a Federal payment to the Thurgood Marshall Academy
Charter School, $1,000,000 to be used to acquire and renovate
an educational facility in Anacostia.

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Public Schools

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia Public
Schools, $2,750,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be to
implement the Voyager Expanded Learning literacy program in
kindergarten and first grade classrooms in the District of
Columbia Public Schools; $250,000 shall be for the Failure
Free Reading literacy program for non-readers and special
education students; $250,000 for Lightspan, Inc. to implement
the eduTest.com program in the District of Columbia Public
Schools; and $250,000 for the Southeastern University for a
public/private partnership with McKinley Technical High
School.

Federal Payment to the George Washington University Center for
Excellence in Municipal Management

For a Federal payment to the George Washington University
Center for Excellence in Municipal Management, $250,000 to
increase the enrollment of managers from the District of
Columbia government.

Federal Payment to the Children's National Medical Center

For a Federal payment to the Children's National Medical
Center in the District of Columbia, $3,200,000 for capital
and equipment improvements.

Federal Payment for Child and Family Social Services Computer
Integration Plan

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia, $200,000
for completion of a plan by the Mayor on integrating the
computer systems of the District of Columbia government with
the Family Court of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia: Provided, That, pursuant to section 4 of S. 1382,
the District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001, the Mayor
shall submit a plan to the President and the Congress within
six months of enactment of that Act, so that social services
and other related services to individuals and families served
by the Family Court of the Superior Court and agencies of the
District of Columbia government (including the District of
Columbia Public Schools, the District of Columbia Housing
Authority, the Child and Family Services Agency, the Office
of the Corporation Counsel, the Metropolitan Police
Department, the Department of Health, and other offices
determined by the Mayor) will be able to access and share
information on the individuals and families served by the
Family Court.

Federal Payments for District of Columbia and Federal Law Enforcement
Mobile Wireless Interoperability Project

For Federal payments in support of the District of Columbia
and the Federal law enforcement Mobile Wireless
Interoperability Project, $1,400,000, of which $400,000 shall
be for a payment to the District of Columbia Office of the
Chief Technology Officer, $333,334 shall be for a payment to
the United States Secret Service, $333,333 shall be for a
payment to the United States Capitol Police, and $333,333
shall be for a payment to the United States Park Police:
Provided, That each agency shall participate in the
preparation of a joint report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
to be submitted no later than March 30, 2002 on the
allocation of these resources and a description of each
agencies' resource commitment to this project for fiscal year
2003.

Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia

For a Federal payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia, $5,900,000, of which $2,250,000 shall
be for payment for a pilot project to demonstrate the
``Active Cap'' river cleanup technology on the Anacostia
River; $500,000 shall be for payment to the Washington, D.C.
Sports and Entertainment Commission which, in coordination
with the U.S. Soccer Foundation, shall use the funds for
environmental and infrastructure costs at Kenilworth Park in
the creation of the Kenilworth Regional Sports Complex;
$600,000 shall be for payment to the One Economy Corporation,
a non-profit organization, to increase Internet access to
low-income homes in the District of Columbia; $500,000 shall
be for payment to the Langston Project for the 21st Century,
a community revitalization project to improve physical
education and training facilities; $1,000,000 shall be for
payment to the Green Door Program, for capital improvements
at a community mental health clinic; $500,000 shall be for
payment to the Historical Society of Washington, for capital
improvements to the new City Museum; $200,000 for a payment
to Teach for America DC, for teacher development; and
$350,000 for payment to the District of Columbia Safe Kids
Coalition, to promote child passenger safety through the
Child Occupant Protection Initiative.

Court Appointed Special Advocates

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia Court
Appointed Special Advocates Unit, $250,000 to be used to
expand their work in the Family Court of the District of
Columbia Superior Court.

Child and Family Services Agency--Family Court Reform

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia Child and
Family Services Agency, $500,000 to be used for activities
authorized under S. 1382, the District of Columbia Family
Court Act of 2001.

Administrative Provisions

Under the heading ``Federal Payment for Incentives for
Adoption of Children'' in Public Law 106-522, approved
November 22, 2000 (114 Stat. 2440), is amended to read as
follows: ``For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia
to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in
the District of Columbia foster care system, $5,000,000 to
remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That
$2,000,000 of said amount shall be used for attorney fees and
home studies: Provided further, That $1,000,000 of said
amount shall be used for the establishment of a scholarship
fund which adoptive families and children without parents,
due to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the
District of Columbia, will use for post high school education
and training for adopted children: Provided further, That
$1,000,000 of said amount shall be used for the establishment
of a private adoptive family resource center in the District
of Columbia to provide ongoing information, education and
support to adoptive families: Provided further, That
$1,000,000 of said amount shall be used for adoption
incentives and support for children with special needs.''.
Of the Federal funds made available in the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001, Public Law 106-522 for the
District of Columbia Public Schools (114 Stat. 2441) and the
Metropolitan Police Department (114 Stat. 2441) such funds
may remain available for the purposes intended until
September 30, 2002: Provided, That funds made available in
such Act for the Washington Interfaith Network (114 Stat.
2444) shall remain available for the purposes intended until
December 31, 2002: Provided further, That funds made
available in such Act for Brownfield Remediation (114 Stat.
2445), shall remain available until expended.

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: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, except as provided in section 450A of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Official
Code, sec. 1-204.50a), the total amount appropriated in this
Act for operating expenses for the District of Columbia for
fiscal year 2002 under this heading shall not exceed the
lesser of the sum of the total revenues of the District of
Columbia for such fiscal year or $6,051,646,000 (of which
$124,163,000 shall be from intra-District funds and
$3,553,300,000 shall be from local funds): Provided further,
That this amount may be increased by (i) proceeds of one-time
transactions, which are expended for emergency or
unanticipated operating or capital needs or (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: Provided further,
That such increases shall be approved by enactment of local
District law and shall comply with all reserve requirements
contained in this act: Provided further, That the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia shall take such
steps as are necessary to assure that the District of
Columbia meets these requirements, including the apportioning
by the Chief Financial Officer of the appropriations and
funds made available to the District during fiscal year 2002,
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.

[[Page S11538]]

Governmental Direction and Support

Governmental direction and support, $307,117,000 (including
$228,471,000 from local funds, $61,367,000 from Federal
funds, and $17,279,000 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, 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 notwithstanding
any other provision of law, or Mayor's Order 86-45, issued
March 18, 1986, the Office of the Chief Technology Officer's
delegated small purchase authority shall be $500,000:
Provided further, That the District of Columbia government
may not require the Office of the Chief Technology Officer 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 not less than $353,000 shall be available to the Office
of the Corporation Counsel to support increases in the
Attorney Retention Allowance: Provided further, That not less
than $50,000 shall be available to support a mediation
services program within the Office of the Corporation
Counsel: Provided further, That not less than $50,000 shall
be available to support a TANF Unit within the Child Support
Enforcement Division of the Office of the Corporation
Counsel: Provided further, That section 403 of the District
of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (Public
Law 93-198; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.03), is amended as
follows:
(1) Subsection (c) is amended by striking the phrase
``shall receive, in addition to the compensation to which he
is entitled as a member of the Council, $10,000 per annum,
payable in equal installments, for each year he serves as
Chairman, but the Chairman''.
(2) A new subsection (d) is added to read as follows:
``(d) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, as of
the effective date of the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, 2001, the Chairman shall receive compensation, payable
in equal installments, at a rate equal to $10,000 less than
the compensation of the Mayor.''.

Economic Development and Regulation

Economic development and regulation, $230,878,000
(including $60,786,000 from local funds, $96,199,000 from
Federal funds, and $73,893,000 from other funds), of which
$15,000,000 collected by the District of Columbia in the form
of BID tax revenue shall be paid to the respective BIDs
pursuant to the Business Improvement Districts Act of 1996
(D.C. Law 11-134; D.C. Official Code, sec. 2-1215.01 et
seq.), and the Business Improvement Districts Amendment Act
of 1997 (D.C. Law 12-26; D.C. Official Code, sec. 2-1215.15
et seq.): Provided, That such funds are available for
acquiring services provided by the General Services
Administration: Provided further, That Business Improvement
Districts shall be exempt from taxes levied by the District
of Columbia: Provided further, That the Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs use $50,000 of the receipts
from the net proceeds from the contractor that handles the
District's occupational and professional licensing to fund
additional staff and equipment for the Rental Housing
Administration: Provided further, That the Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs transfer all local funds
resulting from the lapse of personnel vacancies, caused by
transferring DCRA employees into NSO positions without
filling the resultant vacancies, into the revolving 5-513
fund to be used to implement the provisions in D.C. Act 13-
578, the Abatement and Condemnation of Nuisance Properties
Omnibus Amendment Act of 2000, pertaining to the prevention
of the demolition by neglect of historic properties: Provided
further, That the fees established and collected pursuant to
D.C. Act 13-578 shall be identified, and an accounting
provided, to the District of Columbia Council's Committee on
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs: Provided further, That 18
percent of the annual total amount in the 5-513 fund, up to
$500,000, deposited into the 5-513 fund on an annual basis,
be used to implement section 102 and other related sections
of D.C. Act 13-578: Provided further, That the Department
shall hire, with the consultation and guidance of the
Director of the Office of Personnel on the necessary
qualifications and salary level, from these lapsed funds, as
soon as possible, but in no event later than November 1,
2001, a professional human resources manager who will become
part of the Department's senior management team, and provide
in consultation with its newly hired human resources
professional manager, and the Office of Personnel, a detailed
plan to the Council's Committee on Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs, by December 1, 2001, for the use of the personal
services lapsed funds, including the 58 vacant positions
identified by the Department, in fiscal year 2001 to
reclassify positions, augment pay scales once positions are
reclassified where needed to fill vacancies with qualified
and necessary personnel, and to fund these new and vacant
positions.

Public Safety and Justice

Public safety and justice, $632,668,000 (including
$593,618,000 from local funds, $8,298,000 from Federal funds,
and $30,752,000 from other funds): Provided, 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 no less than $173,000,000 shall
be available to the Metropolitan Police Department for
salaries in support of 3,800 sworn officers: Provided
further, That no less than $100,000 shall be available in the
Department of Corrections budget to support the Corrections
Information Council: Provided further, That no less than
$296,000 shall be available to support the Child Fatality
Review Committee: Provided further, That nothing contained in
this section shall be construed as modifying or affecting the
provisions of section 11(c)(3) of title XII of the District
of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (70 Stat.
78; Public Law 84-460; D.C. Official Code, sec. 47-
1812.11(c)(3)): Provided further, That the Mayor shall
reimburse the District of Columbia National Guard for
expenses incurred in connection with services that are
performed in emergencies by the National Guard in a militia
status and are requested by the Mayor, in amounts that shall
be jointly determined and certified as due and payable for
these services by the Mayor and the Commanding General of the
District of Columbia National Guard: Provided further, That
such sums as may be necessary for reimbursement to the
District of Columbia National Guard under the preceding
proviso shall be available from this appropriation, and the
availability of the sums shall be deemed as constituting
payment in advance for emergency services involved.

Public Education System

Public education system, including the development of
national defense education programs, $1,108,915,000
(including $894,494,000 from local funds, $187,794,000 from
Federal funds, and $26,627,000 from other funds), to be
allocated as follows: $813,292,000 (including $658,624,000
from local funds, $147,380,000 from Federal funds, and
$7,288,000 from other funds), for the public schools of the
District of Columbia; $47,370,000 (including $19,911,000 from
local funds, $26,917,000 from Federal funds, $542,000 from
other funds), for the State Education Office; $17,000,000
from local funds, previously appropriated in this Act as a
Federal payment, and such sums as may be necessary to be
derived from interest earned on funds contained in the
dedicated account established by the Chief Financial Officer
of the District of Columbia, for resident tuition support at
public and private institutions of higher learning for
eligible District of Columbia residents; and $142,257,000
from local funds for public charter schools: Provided, That
there shall be quarterly disbursement of funds to the
District of Columbia public charter schools, with the first
payment to occur within 15 days of the beginning of each
fiscal year: Provided further, That if the entirety of this
allocation has not been provided as payments to any public
charter schools currently in operation through the per pupil
funding formula, the funds shall be available for public
education in accordance with the School Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-134; D.C. Official Code, sec. 38-
1804.03(A)(2)(D)): Provided further, That $480,000 of this
amount shall be available to the District of Columbia Public
Charter School Board for administrative costs: Provided
further, That $76,542,000 (including $45,912,000 from local
funds, $12,539,000 from Federal funds, and $18,091,000 from
other funds) shall be available for the University of the
District of Columbia: Provided further, That $27,256,000
(including $26,030,000 from local funds, $560,000 from
Federal funds and $666,000 other funds) for the Public
Library: Provided further, That the $1,007,000 enhancement
shall be allocated such that $500,000 is used for facilities
improvements for 8 of the 26 library branches, $235,000 for
13 FTEs for the continuation of the Homework Helpers Program,
$143,000 for 2 FTEs in the expansion of the Reach Out And
Roar (ROAR) service to licensed day care homes, and $129,000
for 3 FTEs to expand literacy support into branch libraries:
Provided further, That $2,198,000 (including $1,760,000 from
local funds, $398,000 from Federal funds and $40,000 from
other funds) shall be available 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 none of the funds contained in this Act may be made
available to pay the salaries of any District of Columbia
Public School teacher, principal, administrator, official, or
employee who knowingly provides false enrollment or
attendance information under article II, section 5 of the Act
entitled ``An Act to provide for compulsory school
attendance, for the taking of a school census in the District
of Columbia, and for other purposes'', approved February 4,
1925 (D.C. Official Code, sec. 38-201 et seq.): Provided
further, That this appropriation shall not be available to
subsidize the education of any nonresident of the District of
Columbia at any District of Columbia public elementary and
secondary school during fiscal year 2002 unless the
nonresident pays tuition to the District of Columbia at a
rate that covers 100 percent of the costs incurred by the
District of Columbia which are attributable to the education
of the nonresident (as established by the Superintendent of
the District of Columbia Public Schools): 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, 2002, 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

[[Page S11539]]

comparable public institutions of higher education in the
metropolitan area: Provided further, That the District of
Columbia Public Schools shall spend $1,200,000 to implement
D.C. Teaching Fellows Program in the District's public
schools: Provided further, That notwithstanding the amounts
otherwise provided under this heading or any other provision
of law, there shall be appropriated to the District of
Columbia public charter schools on July 1, 2002, an amount
equal to 25 percent of the total amount provided for payments
to public charter schools in the proposed budget of the
District of Columbia for fiscal year 2003 (as submitted to
Congress), and the amount of such payment shall be chargeable
against the final amount provided for such payments under the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2003: Provided
further, That notwithstanding the amounts otherwise provided
under this heading or any other provision of law, there shall
be appropriated to the District of Columbia Public Schools on
July 1, 2002, an amount equal to 10 percent of the total
amount provided for the District of Columbia Public Schools
in the proposed budget of the District of Columbia for fiscal
year 2003 (as submitted to Congress), and the amount of such
payment shall be chargeable against the final amount provided
for the District of Columbia Public Schools under the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2003: Provided
further, That no less than $200,000 be available for adult
education: Provided further, That the third sentence of
section 441 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act,
approved December 24, 1973 (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Official
Code, sec. 1-204.41), is amended to read as follows:
``However, the fiscal year for the Armory Board shall begin
on the first day of January and shall end on the thirty-first
day of December of each calendar year, and, beginning the
first day of July 2003, the fiscal year for the District of
Columbia Public Schools, District of Columbia Public Charter
Schools and the University of the District of Columbia shall
begin on the first day of July and end on the thirtieth day
of June of each calendar year.'': Provided further, That the
first paragraph under the heading ``Public Education System''
in Public Law 107-20, approved July 24, 2001, is amended to
read as follows: ``For an additional amount for `Public
Education System', $1,000,000 from local funds to remain
available until expended, for the State Education Office for
a census-type audit of the student enrollment of each
District of Columbia Public School and of each public charter
school and $12,000,000 from local funds for the District of
Columbia Public Schools to conduct the 2001 summer school
session.''.

Human Support Services

(Including Transfer of Funds)

Human support services, $1,803,923,000 (including
$711,072,000 from local funds, $1,075,960,000 from Federal
funds, and $16,891,000 from other funds): Provided, That
$27,986,000 of this appropriation, to remain available until
expended, shall be available solely for District of Columbia
employees' disability compensation: Provided further, That
$75,000,000 shall be available to the Health Care Safety Net
Administration established by section 1802 of the Fiscal Year
2002 Budget Support Act of 2001, D.C. Bill 14-144;
$90,000,000 available under the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-522) to the Public
Benefit Corporation for restructuring shall be made available
to the Health Care Safety Net Administration for the purpose
of restructuring the delivery of health services in the
District of Columbia and shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That no less than $7,500,000 of
this appropriation, to remain available until expended, shall
be deposited in the Addiction Recovery Fund established
pursuant to section 5 of the Choice in Drug Treatment Act of
2000, effective July 8, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-146; D.C. Official
Code, sec. 7-3004), and used solely for the purpose of the
Drug Treatment Choice Program established pursuant to section
4 of the Choice in Drug Treatment Act of 2000 (D.C. Official
Code, sec. 7-3003): Provided further, That no less than
$500,000 of the $7,500,000 appropriated for the Addiction
Recovery Fund shall be used solely to pay treatment providers
who provide substance abuse treatment to TANF recipients
under the Drug Treatment Choice Program: Provided further,
That no less than $2,000,000 of this appropriation shall be
used solely to establish, by contract, a 2-year pilot
substance abuse program for youth ages 16 through 21 years of
age: Provided further, That no less than $60,000 be available
for a D.C. Energy Office Matching Grant: Provided further,
That no less than $2,150,000 be available for a pilot Interim
Disability Assistance program pursuant to title L of the
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Support Act (D.C. Bill 14-144).

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, $300,151,000
(including $286,334,000 from local funds, $4,392,000 from
Federal funds, and $9,425,000 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 no less than $650,000 be
available for a mechanical alley sweeping program: Provided
further, That no less than $6,400,000 be available for
residential parking enforcement: Provided further, That no
less than $100,000 be available for a General Counsel to the
Department of Public Works: Provided further, That no less
than $3,600,000 be available for ticket processing: Provided
further, That no less than 14 residential parking control
aides or 10 percent of the residential parking control force
be available for night time enforcement of out-of-state tags:
Provided further, That of the total of 3,000 additional
parking meters being installed in commercial districts and in
commercial loading zones none be installed at loading zones,
or entrances at apartment buildings and none be installed in
residential neighborhoods: Provided further, That no less
than $262,000 be available for taxicab enforcement
activities: Provided further, That no less than $241,000 be
available for a taxicab driver security revolving fund:
Provided further, That no less than $30,084,000 in local
appropriations be available to the Division of
Transportation, within the Department of Public Works:
Provided further, That no less than $12,000,000 in rights-of-
way fees shall be available for the Local Roads, Construction
and Maintenance Fund: Provided further, That funding for a
proposed separate Department of Transportation is contingent
upon Council approval of a reorganization plan: Provided
further, That no less than $313,000 be available for
handicapped parking enforcement: Provided further, That no
less than $190,000 be available for the Ignition Interlock
Device Program: Provided further, That no less than $473,000
be available for the Motor Vehicle Insurance Enforcement
Program: Provided further, That $11,000,000 shall be
available for transfer to the Highway Trust Fund's Local
Roads, Construction and Maintenance Fund, upon certification
by the Chief Financial Officer that funds are available from
the 2001 budgeted reserve or where the Chief Financial
Officer certifies that additional local revenues are
available: Provided further, That $1,550,000 made available
under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001
(Public Law 106-522) for taxicab driver security enhancements
in the District of Columbia shall remain available until
September 30, 2002.

Receivership Programs

For all agencies of the District of Columbia government
under court ordered receivership, $403,868,000 (including
$250,015,000 from local funds, $134,839,000 from Federal
funds, and $19,014,000 from other funds).

Workforce Investments

For workforce investments, $42,896,000 from local funds, to
be transferred by the Mayor of the District of Columbia
within the various appropriation headings in this Act for
which employees are properly payable.

Reserve

For replacement of funds expended, if any, during fiscal
year 2001 from the Reserve established by section 202(j) of
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995, Public Law 104-8,
$120,000,000 from local funds.

Reserve Relief

For reserve relief, $30,000,000, for the purpose of
spending funds made available through the reduction from
$150,000,000 to $120,000,000 in the amount required for the
Reserve established by section 202(j) of the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-8: Provided, That $12,000,000
shall be available to the District of Columbia Public Schools
and District of Columbia Public Charter Schools for
educational enhancements: Provided further, That $18,000,000
shall be available pursuant to a local District law: Provided
further, That of the $30,000,000, funds shall only be
expended upon: (i) certification by the Chief Financial
Officer of the District of Columbia that the funds are
available and not required to address potential deficits,
(ii) enactment of local District law detailing the purpose
for the expenditure, (iii) prior notification by the Mayor to
the Committees on Appropriations of both the Senate and House
of Representatives in writing 30 days in advance of any such
expenditure: Provided further, That the $18,000,000 provided
pursuant to local law shall be expended only when the
Emergency Reserve established pursuant to Section 450A(a) of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198;
D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.50a(a)), has a minimum balance
in the amount of $150,000,000.

Emergency and Contingency Reserve Funds

For the Emergency and Contingency Reserve Funds established
under section 450A of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
(Public Law 93-198; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.50a(b)),
the Mayor may deposit the proceeds required pursuant to
Section 159(a) of Public Law 106-522 and Section 404(c) of
Public Law 106-554 in the Contingency Reserve Fund beginning
in fiscal year 2002 if the minimum emergency reserve balance
requirement established in Section 450A(c) has been met.

Repayment of Loans and Interest

For payment of principal, interest, and certain fees
directly resulting from borrowing by the District of Columbia
to fund District of Columbia capital projects as authorized
by sections 462, 475, and 490 of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Official Code, secs.
1-204.62, 1-204.75, 1-204.90), $247,902,000 from local funds:
Provided, That any funds set aside pursuant to section 148 of
the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law
106-113; 113 Stat. 1523) that are not used in the reserve
funds established herein shall be used for Pay-As-You-Go
Capital Funds: Provided further, That for equipment leases,
the Mayor may finance $14,300,000 of equipment cost, plus
cost of issuance not to exceed 2 percent of the par amount
being financed on a lease purchase basis with a maturity not
to exceed 5 years: Provided further, That $4,440,000 shall be
for the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department,
$2,010,000 shall be for the Department of Parks and
Recreation, and $7,850,000 shall be for the Department of
Public Works: Provided further, That no less than $533,000 be
available for trash transfer capital

[[Page S11540]]

debt service. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
District of Columbia is hereby authorized to make any
necessary payments related to the ``District of Columbia
Emergency Assistance Act of 2001'': Provided, That the
District of Columbia shall use local funds for any payments
under this heading: Provided further, That the Chief
Financial Officer shall certify the availability of such
funds, and shall certify that such funds are not required to
address budget shortfalls in the District of Columbia.

Repayment of General Fund Recovery Debt

For the purpose of eliminating the $331,589,000 general
fund accumulated deficit as of September 30, 1990,
$39,300,000 from local funds, as authorized by section 461(a)
of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, (105 Stat. 540;
D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-204.61(a)).

Payment of Interest on Short-Term Borrowing

For payment of interest on short-term borrowing, $500,000
from local funds.

Wilson Building

For expenses associated with the John A. Wilson Building,
$8,859,000 from local funds.

Emergency Reserve Fund Transfer

Subject to the issuance of bonds to pay the purchase price
of the District of Columbia's right, title, and interest in
and to the Master Settlement Agreement, and consistent with
the Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund Establishment Act of 1999
(D.C. Official Code, sec. 7-1811.01(a)(ii)) and the Tobacco
Settlement Financing Act of 2000 (D.C. Official Code, sec. 7-
1831.03 et seq.), there is transferred the amount available
pursuant thereto and Section 404(c) of Public Law 106-554 to
the Emergency and Contingency Reserve Funds established
pursuant to section 450A of the District of Columbia Home
Rule Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-
204.50a(a)).

Non-Departmental Agency

To account for anticipated costs that cannot be allocated
to specific agencies during the development of the proposed
budget including anticipated employee health insurance cost
increases and contract security costs, $5,799,000 from local
funds.

ENTERPRISE AND OTHER FUNDS

Water and Sewer Authority

For operation of the Water and Sewer Authority,
$244,978,000 from other funds for fiscal year 2002 of which
$44,244,000 shall be apportioned for repayment of loans and
interest incurred for capital improvement projects
($17,953,000 payable to the District's debt service fund and
$26,291,000 payable for other debt service).
For construction projects, $152,114,000, in the following
capital programs: $52,600,000 for the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant, $11,148,000 for the sewer program, $109,000
for the combined sewer program, $118,000 for the stormwater
program, $77,957,000 for the water program, $10,182,000 for
the capital equipment program: Provided, That the
requirements and restrictions that are applicable to general
fund capital improvements projects and set forth in this Act
under the Capital Outlay appropriation account shall apply to
projects approved under this appropriation account.

Washington Aqueduct

For operation of the Washington Aqueduct, $46,510,000 from
other funds for fiscal year 2002.

Stormwater Permit Compliance Enterprise Fund

For operation of the Stormwater Permit Compliance
Enterprise Fund, $3,100,000 from other funds for fiscal year
2002.

Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund

For the Lottery and Charitable Games Enterprise Fund,
established pursuant to the District of Columbia
Appropriation Act, 1982 (95 Stat. 1174, 1175; Public Law 97-
91), 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 (D.C. Law 3-
172; D.C. Official Code, sec. 3-1301 et seq. and sec. 22-1716
et seq.), $229,688,000: 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.

Sports and Entertainment Commission

For the Sports and Entertainment Commission, $9,127,000
from other funds: 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 (87 Stat. 824; Public Law 93-198; D.C. Official
Code, sec. 1-204.42(b)).

District of Columbia Retirement Board

For the District of Columbia Retirement Board, established
by section 121 of the District of Columbia Retirement Reform
Act of 1979 (93 Stat. 866; D.C. Official Code, sec. 1-711),
$13,388,000 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 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,
$57,278,000 from other funds.

Housing Finance Agency

For the Housing Finance Agency, $4,711,000 from other
funds.

National Capital Revitalization Corporation

For the National Capital Revitalization Corporation,
$2,673,000 from other funds.

CAPITAL OUTLAY

(Including Rescissions)

For construction projects, an increase of $1,550,786,700 of
which $1,348,782,387 shall be from local funds, $44,431,135
shall be from the Highway Trust Fund, and $157,573,178 shall
be from Federal funds, and a rescission of $476,182,431 from
local funds appropriated under this heading in prior fiscal
years, for a net amount of $1,074,604,269 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 the capital budget of
$83,400,000 for the Department of Health shall not be
available until the District of Columbia Council's Committee
on Human Services receives a report on the use of any capital
funds for projects on the grounds of D.C. General Hospital:
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 (82 Stat. 827; Public Law
90-495), for which funds are provided by this appropriation
title, shall expire on September 30, 2003, except
authorizations for projects as to which funds have been
obligated in whole or in part prior to September 30, 2003:
Provided further, That upon expiration of any such project
authorization, the funds provided herein for the project
shall lapse: Provided further, That except for funds approved
in the budgets prior to the fiscal year 2002 budget and FL-
MA2 in the fiscal year 2002 Budget Request, no local funds
may be expended to renovate, rehabilitate or construct any
facility within the boundaries of census tract 68.04 for any
purpose associated with the D.C. Department of Corrections,
the CSOSA, or the federal Bureau of Prisons unit until such
time as the Mayor shall present to the Council for its
approval, a plan for the development of census tract 68.04
south of East Capitol Street, S.E., and the housing of any
misdemeanants, felons, ex-offenders, or persons awaiting
trial within the District of Columbia: Provided further, That
none of the conditions set forth in this paragraph shall
interfere with the operations of any Federal agency.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 101. 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. 102. 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 in the case of the Council of the District of Columbia,
funds may be expended with the authorization of the chair of
the Council.
Sec. 103. 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 legal settlements or
judgments that have been entered against the District of
Columbia government: Provided, That nothing contained in this
section shall be construed as modifying or affecting the
provisions of section 11(c)(3) of title XII of the District
of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947 (70 Stat.
78; Public Law 84-460; D.C. Code, sec. 47-1812.11(c)(3)).
Sec. 104. 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. 105. 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. 106. None of the Federal funds appropriated in this
Act 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. 107. 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. 108. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act to
the agencies funded by this Act, both Federal and District
government agencies, that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2002, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for an
agency through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates
new programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or
responsibility center; (3) establishes or changes

[[Page S11541]]

allocations specifically denied, limited or increased by
Congress in this Act; (4) increases funds or personnel by any
means for any program, project, or responsibility center for
which funds have been denied or restricted; (5) reestablishes
through reprogramming any program or project previously
deferred through reprogramming; (6) augments existing
programs, projects, or responsibility centers through a
reprogramming of funds in excess of $1,000,000 or 10 percent,
whichever is less; or (7) increases by 20 percent or more
personnel assigned to a specific program, project or
responsibility center; unless the Committees on
Appropriations of both the Senate and House of
Representatives are notified in writing 30 days in advance of
any reprogramming as set forth in this section.
(b) None of the local funds contained in this Act may be
available for obligation or expenditure for an agency through
a reprogramming or transfer of funds which transfers any
local funds from one appropriation title to another unless
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives are notified in writing 30 days in advance of
the reprogramming or transfer, except that in no event may
the amount of any funds reprogrammed or transferred exceed
four percent of the local funds.
Sec. 109. Consistent with the provisions of 31 U.S.C.
1301(a), appropriations under this Act shall be applied only
to the objects for which the appropriations were made except
as otherwise provided by law.
Sec. 110. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the
provisions of the District of Columbia Government
Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 (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 (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. 111. No later than 30 days after the end of the first
quarter of the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, the
Mayor of the District of Columbia shall submit to the Council
of the District of Columbia the new fiscal year 2002 revenue
estimates as of the end of the first quarter of fiscal year
2002. These estimates shall be used in the budget request for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003. The officially
revised estimates at midyear shall be used for the midyear
report.
Sec. 112. 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 (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 certified by the
Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia.
Sec. 113. For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037; Public Law 99-
177), 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.
Sec. 114. In the event a sequestration order is issued
pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (99 Stat. 1037: Public Law 99-177), 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 such Act.
Sec. 115. Acceptance and Use of Gifts. (a) Approval by
Mayor.--
(1) In general.--An entity of the District of Columbia
government may accept and use a gift or donation during
fiscal year 2002 if--
(A) the Mayor approves the acceptance and use of the gift
or donation (except as provided in paragraph (2)); and
(B) the entity uses the gift or donation to carry out its
authorized functions or duties.
(2) Exception for council and courts.--The Council of the
District of Columbia and the District of Columbia courts may
accept and use gifts without prior approval by the Mayor.
(b) Records and Public Inspection.--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), and shall make such records
available for audit and public inspection.
(c) Independent Agencies Included.--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) Exception for Board of Education.--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. 116. 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 (D.C.
Law 3-171; D.C. Code, sec. 1-113(d)).
Sec. 117. 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. 118. None of the Federal 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,
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.
Sec. 119. Acceptance and Use of Grants. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, the Mayor, in consultation with
the Chief Financial Officer, 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. No such Federal, private, or other grant may be
accepted, obligated, or expended until (1) the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia submits to the
Council a report setting forth detailed information regarding
such grant, and (2) the Council has reviewed and approved the
acceptance, obligation, and expenditure of such grant, such
approval contingent upon (A) no written notice of disapproval
being filed with the Secretary to the Council within 14
calendar days of the receipt of the report from the Chief
Financial Officer, and no oral notice of disapproval is given
during a meeting of the Council during such 14 calendar day
period, the report shall be deemed to be approved, and (B)
should notice of disapproval be given during such initial 14-
calendar day period, the Council may approve or disapprove
the report by resolution within 30 calendar days of the
initial receipt of the report from the Chief Financial
Officer, or such report shall be deemed to be approved. 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 or in anticipation of the
approval or receipt of a Federal, private, or other grant not
subject to these provisions. The Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia shall prepare a quarterly report
setting forth detailed information regarding all Federal,
private, and other grants subject to these provisions. 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 quarter covered by the report.
Sec. 120. (a) Restrictions on Use of Official Vehicles.--
Except as otherwise provided in this section, 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: (1) in the case of an officer or employee
of the Metropolitan Police Department who resides in the
District of Columbia or is otherwise designated by the Chief
of the Department; (2) at the discretion of the Fire Chief,
an officer or employee of the District of Columbia Fire and
Emergency Medical Services Department who resides in the
District of Columbia and is on call 24 hours a day; (3) the
Mayor of the District of Columbia; and (4) the Chairman of
the Council of the District of Columbia).
(b) Inventory of Vehicles.--The Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia shall submit, by November 15, 2001,
an inventory, as of September 30, 2001, 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.
Sec. 121. No officer or employee of the District of
Columbia government (including any independent agency of the
District but excluding the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia, the Metropolitan Police Department, and
the Office of the Chief Technology Officer) may enter into an
agreement in excess of $2,500 for the procurement of goods or
services on behalf of any entity of the District government
until the officer or employee has conducted an analysis of
how the procurement of the goods and services involved under
the applicable regulations and procedures of the District
government would differ from the procurement of the goods and
services involved under the Federal supply schedule and other
applicable regulations and procedures of the General Services
Administration, including an analysis of any differences in
the costs to be incurred and the time required to obtain the
goods or services.
Sec. 122. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not
later than 120 days after the date that a District of
Columbia Public Schools

[[Page S11542]]

(DCPS) student is referred for evaluation or assessment--
(1) the District of Columbia Board of Education, or its
successor, and DCPS shall assess or evaluate a student who
may have a disability and who may require special education
services; and
(2) if a student is classified as having a disability, as
defined in section 101(a)(1) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (84 Stat. 175; 20 U.S.C.
1401(a)(1)) or in section 7(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (87 Stat. 359; 29 U.S.C. 706(8)), the Board and DCPS
shall place that student in an appropriate program of special
education services.
Sec. 123. (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 the 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.
Sec. 124. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used for purposes of the annual independent audit of the
District of Columbia government for fiscal year 2002 unless--
(1) the audit is conducted by the Inspector General of the
District of Columbia, in coordination with the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia, pursuant to
section 208(a)(4) of the District of Columbia Procurement
Practices Act of 1985 (D.C. Code, sec. 1-1182.8(a)(4)); and
(2) the audit includes a comparison of audited actual year-
end results with the revenues submitted in the budget
document for such year and the appropriations enacted into
law for such year.
Sec. 125. None of the Federal funds contained in this Act
may be used by the District of Columbia Corporation Counsel
or any other officer or entity of the District government to
provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action
which seeks to require Congress to provide for voting
representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.
Sec. 126. No later than November 1, 2001, or within 30
calendar days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
whichever occurs later, the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress, the Mayor, and the Council a revised
appropriated funds operating budget in the format of the
budget that the District of Columbia government submitted
pursuant to section 442 of the District of Columbia Home Rule
Act (Public Law 93-198; D.C. Code, sec. 47-301), for all
agencies of the District of Columbia government for such
fiscal year that is in the total amount of the approved
appropriation and that realigns all budgeted data for
personal services and other-than-personal-services,
respectively, with anticipated actual expenditures.
Sec. 127. (a) None of the Federal funds contained in this
Act may be used for any program of distributing sterile
needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any
illegal drug.
(b) Any individual or entity who receives any funds
contained in this Act and who carries out any program
described in subsection (a) shall account for all funds used
for such program separately from any funds contained in this
Act.
Sec. 128. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used after the expiration of the 60-day period that begins on
the date of the enactment of this Act to pay the salary of
any chief financial officer of any office of the District of
Columbia government who has not filed a certification with
the Mayor and the Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia that the officer understands the duties and
restrictions applicable to the officer and the officer's
agency as a result of this Act (and the amendments made by
this Act), including any duty to prepare a report requested
either in the Act or in any of the reports accompanying the
Act and the deadline by which each report must be submitted,
and the District's Chief Financial Officer shall provide to
the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House
of Representatives by the 10th day after the end of each
quarter a summary list showing each report, the due date and
the date submitted to the Committees.
Sec. 129. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be used to enact or carry out any law, rule, or regulation to
legalize or otherwise reduce penalties associated with the
possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance
under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or any
tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.
(b) The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative of 1998, also known as Initiative 59, approved by
the electors of the District of Columbia on November 3, 1998,
shall not take effect.
Sec. 130. Nothing in this Act may be construed to prevent
the Council or Mayor of the District of Columbia from
addressing the issue of the provision of contraceptive
coverage by health insurance plans, but it is the intent of
Congress that any legislation enacted on such issue should
include a ``conscience clause'' which provides exceptions for
religious beliefs and moral convictions.

prompt payment of appointed counsel

Sec. 131. (a) Assessment of Interest for Delayed
Payments.--If the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals does not make a
payment described in subsection (b) prior to the expiration
of the 45-day period which begins on the date the Court
receives a completed voucher for a claim for the payment,
interest shall be assessed against the amount of the payment
which would otherwise be made to take into account the period
which begins on the day after the expiration of such 45-day
period and which ends on the day the Court makes the payment.
(b) Payments Described.--A payment described in this
subsection is--
(1) a payment authorized under section 11-2604 and section
11-2605, D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under
the District of Columbia Criminal Justice Act);
(2) a payment for counsel appointed in proceedings in the
Family Division of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia under chapter 23 of title 16, D.C. Code; or
(3) a payment for counsel authorized under section 21-2060,
D.C. Code (relating to representation provided under the
District of Columbia Guardianship, Protective Proceedings,
and Durable Power of Attorney Act of 1986).
(c) Standards for Submission of Completed Vouchers.--The
chief judges of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall
establish standards and criteria for determining whether
vouchers submitted for claims for payments described in
subsection (b) are complete, and shall publish and make such
standards and criteria available to attorneys who practice
before such Courts.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require the assessment of interest against any
claim (or portion of any claim) which is denied by the Court
involved.
(e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect
to claims received by the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals during
fiscal year 2002, and claims received previously that remain
unpaid at the end of fiscal year 2001, and would have
qualified for interest payment under this section.
Sec. 132. The Mayor of the District of Columbia shall
submit to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations,
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and the House
Government Reform Committee quarterly reports addressing the
following issues: (1) crime, including the homicide rate,
implementation of community policing, the number of police
officers on local beats, and the closing down of open-air
drug markets; (2) access to drug abuse treatment, including
the number of treatment slots, the number of people served,
the number of people on waiting lists, and the effectiveness
of treatment programs; (3) management of parolees and pre-
trial violent offenders, including the number of halfway
house escapes and steps taken to improve monitoring and
supervision of halfway house residents to reduce the number
of escapes to be provided in consultation with the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency; (4) education,
including access to special education services and student
achievement to be provided in consultation with the District
of Columbia Public Schools; (5) improvement in basic District
services, including rat control and abatement; (6)
application for and management of Federal grants, including
the number and type of grants for which the District was
eligible but failed to apply and the number and type of
grants awarded to the District but for which the District
failed to spend the amounts received; and (7) indicators of
child well-being.

RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 133. (a) In General.--Section 202(j) of Public Law
104-8, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Act of 1995 is amended to read as
follows:
``(j) Reserve Funds.--
``(1) Budget reserve.--
``(A) In general.--For each of the fiscal years 2002 and
2003, the budget of the District government for the fiscal
year shall contain a budget reserve in the following amounts:
``(i) $120,000,000, in the case of fiscal year 2002.
``(ii) $70,000,000, in the case of fiscal year 2003.
``(B) Availability of funds.--Any amount made available
from the budget reserve described in subparagraph (A) shall
remain available until expended.
``(C) Availability of fy 2001 budget reserve funds.--For
fiscal year 2001, any amount in the budget reserve shall
remain available until expended.
``(2) Cumulative cash reserve.--In addition to any other
cash reserves required under section 450A of the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act, for each of the fiscal years 2004 and
2005, the budget of the District government for the fiscal
year shall contain a cumulative cash reserve of $50,000,000.
``(3) Conditions on use.--The District of Columbia may
obligate or expend amounts in the budget reserve under
paragraph (1) or the cumulative cash reserve under paragraph
(2) only in accordance with the following conditions:

[[Page S11543]]

``(A) The Chief Financial Officer of the District of
Columbia shall certify that the amounts are available.
``(B) The amounts shall be obligated or expended in
accordance with laws enacted by the Council in support of
each such obligation or expenditure.
``(C) The amounts may not be used to fund the agencies of
the District of Columbia government under court ordered
receivership.
``(D) The amounts may be obligated or expended only if the
Mayor notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and Senate in writing 30 days in advance
of any obligation or expenditure.
``(4) Replenishment.--Any amount of the budget reserve
under paragraph (1) or the cumulative cash reserve under
paragraph (2) which is expended in one fiscal year shall be
replenished in the following fiscal year appropriations to
maintain the required balance.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect October 1, 2001.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 159(c) of the District
of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-522; 114
Stat. 2482) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Effective Date.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
this section and the amendments made by this section shall
take effect on October 1, 2000.
``(2) Repeal of positive fund balance requirement.--The
amendment made by subsection (b)(2) shall take effect October
1, 1999.
``(3) Transfer of funds.--All funds identified by the
District government pursuant to section 148 of Public Law
106-113, as reflected in the certified annual financial
report for fiscal year 2000, shall be deposited during fiscal
year 2002 into the Emergency and Contingency Reserve Funds
established pursuant to Section 159 of Public Law 106-522,
during fiscal year 2002.''.
(d) Contingency Reserve Fund.--Section 450A(b) of the Home
Rule Act (Public Law 93-198) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--There is established a contingency cash
reserve fund (in this subsection referred to as the
`contingency reserve fund') as an interest-bearing account
(separate from other accounts in the General Fund) into which
the Mayor shall deposit in cash not later than October 1 of
each fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2002) such
amount as may be required to maintain a balance in the fund
of at least 3 percent of the total budget appropriated for
operating expenditures for such fiscal year which is derived
from local funds (or, in the case of fiscal years prior to
fiscal year 2007, such amount as may be required to maintain
a balance in the fund of at least the minimum contingency
reserve balance for such fiscal year, as determined under
paragraph (2)).''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(B) Applicable percentage defined.--In subparagraph (A),
the `applicable percentage' with respect to a fiscal year
means the following:
``(i) For fiscal year 2002, 0 percent.
``(ii) For fiscal year 2003, 0 percent.
``(iii) For fiscal year 2004, 0 percent.
``(iv) For fiscal year 2005, 1 percent.
``(v) For fiscal year 2006, 2 percent.''.
Sec. 134. Integrated Product Team. No funds appropriated by
this Act shall be available for an Integrated Product Team
until reorganization plans for the Integrated Product Team
and a Capital Construction Services Administration have been
approved, or deemed approved, by the Council: Provided, That
this paragraph shall not apply to funds appropriated for the
Office of Contracting and Procurement.
Sec. 135. Corporation Counsel Antitrust, Antifraud,
Consumer Protection Funds. All funds whenever deposited in
the District of Columbia Antitrust Fund established pursuant
to section 2 of the District of Columbia Antitrust Act of
1980 (D.C. Law 3-169; D.C. Code Sec. 28-4516), the Antifraud
Fund established pursuant to section 820 of the District of
Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985, effective
February 21, 1986 (D.C. Law 6-85; D.C. Code Sec. 1-1188.20),
and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Fund
established pursuant to section 1402 of the District of
Columbia Budget Support Act for fiscal year 2001 (D.C. Law
13-172; D.C. Code Sec. 28-3911), are hereby appropriated for
the use of the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the
District of Columbia until September 30, 2003, in accordance
with the statutes that established these funds.
Sec. 136. Risk Management for Settlements and Judgments. In
addition to any other authority to pay claims and judgments,
any department, agency, or instrumentality of the District
government may pay the settlement or judgment of a claim or
lawsuit in an amount less than $10,000, in accordance with
the Risk Management for Settlements and Judgments Amendment
Act of 2000, effective October 19, 2000 (D.C. Law 13-172;
D.C. Official Code Sec. 2-402).
Sec. 137. To waive the period of Congressional review of
the Closing of Portions of 2nd and N Streets, N.E. and Alley
System in Square 710, S.O. 00-97, Act of 2001.
Notwithstanding section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia
Home Rule Act (sec. 1-233(c)(1), D.C. Code), the Closing of
Portions of 2nd and N Streets, N.E. and Alley System in
Square 710, S.O. 00-97, Act of 2001 (D.C. Act 14-106) shall
take effect on the date of the enactment of such Act or the
date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
Sec. 138. (a) None of the funds contained in this Act may
be made available to pay the fees of an attorney who
represents a party who prevails in an action or any attorney
who defends any action, including an administrative
proceeding, brought against the District of Columbia Public
Schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) if--
(1) the hourly rate of compensation of the attorney exceeds
300 percent of the maximum amount of compensation under
section 11-2604(b)(1), District of Columbia Code; or
(2) the maximum amount of compensation of the attorney
exceeds 300 percent of the maximum amount of compensation
under section 11-2604(b)(1), District of Columbia Code,
except that compensation and reimbursement in excess of such
maximum may be approved for extended or complex
representation in accordance with section 11-2604(c),
District of Columbia Code; and
(3) in no case may the compensation limits in paragraphs
(1) and (2) exceed $3,000.
(b) Notwithstanding the preceding subsection, if the Mayor
and the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public
Schools concur in a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth
a new rate and amount of compensation, or a new limit
referred to in subsection (a)(3), then such new rates or
limits shall apply in lieu of the rates and limits set forth
in the preceding subsection to both the attorney who
represents the prevailing party and the attorney who defends
the action.
(c) Notwithstanding 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1988, 29 U.S.C Sec. 794a, or any other law, none of the
funds appropriated under this Act, or in appropriations Acts
for subsequent fiscal years, may be made available to pay
attorneys' fees accrued prior to the effective date of this
Act that exceeds a cap imposed on attorneys' fees by prior
appropriations Acts that were in effect during the fiscal
year when the work was performed, or when payment was
requested for work previously performed, in an action brought
against the District of Columbia Public Schools under the
Individuals With Disabilities Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et
seq.).
Sec. 139. The limitation on attorneys' fees paid by the
District of Columbia for actions brought under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400
et seq.) (sec. 138) shall not apply if the plaintiff is a
child who is--
(1) from a family with an annual income of less than
$17,600; or
(2) from a family where one of the parents is a disabled
veteran; or
(3) where the child has been adjudicated as neglected or
abused.
Sec. 140. Mandatory Advanced Electronic Information for Air
Cargo and Passengers Entering the United States. (a) Air
Cargo Information.--
(1) In general.--Section 431(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(19 U.S.C. 1431(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(b) Production of Manifest.--Any
manifest'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Production of Manifest.--
``(1) In general.--Any manifest'';
(B) by indenting the margin of paragraph (1), as so
designated, two ems; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Additional information.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to any other requirement
under this section, every air carrier required to make entry
or obtain clearance under the customs laws of the United
States, the pilot, the master, operator, or owner of such
carrier (or the authorized agent of such owner or operator)
shall provide by electronic transmission cargo manifest
information specified in subparagraph (B) in advance of such
entry or clearance in such manner, time, and form as the
Secretary shall prescribe. The Secretary may exclude any
class of air carrier for which the Secretary concludes the
requirements of this subparagraph are not necessary.
``(B) Information required.--The information specified in
this subparagraph is as follows:
``(i) The port of arrival or departure, whichever is
applicable.
``(ii) The carrier code, prefix code, or, both.
``(iii) The flight or trip number.
``(iv) The date of scheduled arrival or date of scheduled
departure, whichever is applicable.
``(v) The request for permit to proceed to the destination,
if applicable.
``(vi) The numbers and quantities from the master and house
air waybill or bills of lading.
``(vii) The first port of lading of the cargo.
``(viii) A description and weight of the cargo.
``(ix) The shippers name and address from all air waybills
or bills of lading.
``(x) The consignee name and address from all air waybills
or bills of lading.
``(xi) Notice that actual boarded quantities are not equal
to air waybill or bills of lading quantities.
``(xii) Transfer or transit information.
``(xiii) Warehouse or other location of the cargo.
``(xiv) Such other information as the Secretary, by
regulation, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure
aviation transportation safety pursuant to the laws enforced
or administered by the Customs Service.
``(3) Availability of information.--Information provided
under paragraph (2) may be shared with other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government, including the Department
of Transportation and the law enforcement agencies of the
Federal Government, for purposes of protecting the national
security of the United States.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Subparagraphs (A) and (C) of
section 431(d)(1) of such Act are each amended by inserting
before the semicolon ``or subsection (b)(2)''.
(b) Passenger Information.--Part II of title IV of the
Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by inserting after section 431
the following new section:

[[Page S11544]]

``SEC. 432. PASSENGER AND CREW MANIFEST INFORMATION REQUIRED
FOR AIR CARRIERS.

``(a) In General.--For every person arriving or departing
on an air carrier required to make entry or obtain clearance
under the customs laws of the United States, the pilot, the
master, operator, or owner of such carrier (or the authorized
agent of such owner or operator) shall provide, by electronic
transmission, manifest information specified in subsection
(b) in advance of such entry or clearance in such manner,
time, and form as the Secretary shall prescribe.
``(b) Information.--The information specified in this
subsection with respect to a person is--
``(1) full name;
``(2) date of birth and citizenship;
``(3) sex;
``(4) passport number and country of issuance;
``(5) United States visa number or resident alien card
number, as applicable;
``(6) passenger name record; and
``(7) such other information as the Secretary, by
regulation, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure
aviation transportation safety pursuant to the laws enforced
or administered by the Customs Service.
``(c) Availability of Information.--Information provided
under this section may be shared with other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government, including the Department
of Transportation and the law enforcement agencies of the
Federal Government, for purposes of protecting the national
security of the United States.''.
(c) Definition.--Section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1401) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(t) Air Carrier.--The term `air carrier' means an air
carrier transporting goods or passengers for payment or other
consideration, including money or services rendered.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 45 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
Sec. 141. The General Accounting Office, in consultation
with the relevant agencies and members of the Committee on
Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,
shall submit by January 2, 2002 a report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and the Senate and the Committee
on Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives detailing
the awards in judgment rendered in the District of Columbia
that were in excess of the cap imposed by prior
appropriations Acts in effect during the fiscal year when the
work was performed, or when payment was requested for work
previously performed, in actions brought against the District
of Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.):
Provided, That such report shall include a comparison of the
cause of actions and judgments rendered against public school
districts of comparable demographics and population as the
District.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia
Appropriations Act, 2002''.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate insists
on its amendments, requests a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair appoints Ms.
Landrieu, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Inouye, Mr. DeWine, Mrs. Hutchison,
and Mr. Stevens conferees on the part of the Senate.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________