[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.

       ``(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.

  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.

                          ____________________