- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 517
109th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 109-281
======================================================================
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007
_______
July 13, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Brownback, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 3660]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 0000) 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, 2007, and for other purposes,
reports the same to the Senate with amendments and recommends
that the bill as amended do pass. deg.
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3660)
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, 2007, and for other purposes, reports
favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2007
Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $597,000,000
Amount of 2006 appropriations........................... 596,970,000
Amount of 2007 budget estimate.......................... 597,200,000
Amount of House allowance............................... 575,200,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
2006 appropriations................................. +30,000
2007 budget estimate................................ -200,000
House allowance..................................... +21,800,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Summary of Bill.................................................. 3
General Statement................................................ 5
Federal Funds.................................................... 8
General Provisions............................................... 42
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of
the Sen-
ate............................................................ 44
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 44
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 45
Budgetary Impact of Bill......................................... 46
SUMMARY OF BILL
The following discussion of the bill includes general
information on initiatives and concerns of the Committee and an
analysis of the total resources estimated to be available to
the District of Columbia in the coming fiscal year.
The Committee recommendation contains items funded by the
House in a different bill, H.R. 5576. The Committee believes
that it is appropriate to fund these items in this bill. For
ease of comparison, the Committee report sets forth a ``House
allowance'' as if these items had been contained in this bill.
These items were contained in the Transportation, Treasury, the
Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2007 (H.R. 5576), as passed the House, but
were not considered or contained in the Committee
recommendation to the Senate on that bill.
Federal Funds
The Committee considered requests from the President for
Federal funds totaling $597,200,000 in budget authority for the
District of Columbia appropriation. The Committee
recommendation is $597,000,000 and is appropriated as follows:
(1) $33,200,000 for District of Columbia resident tuition
support; (2) $206,629,000 for the District of Columbia Courts;
(3) $43,475,000 for Defender Services in the District of
Columbia Courts; (4) $183,653,000 for the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia; (5)
$32,710,000 for the Public Defender Service in the District of
Columbia; (6) $8,533,000 for security costs related to the
presence of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia;
(7) $1,000,000 for transportation assistance; (8) $7,000,000
for the combined sewer overflow; (9) $5,000,000 for security,
economic development, education and health projects; (10)
$5,000,000 for support of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative;
(11) $40,000,000 for school improvement; (12) $2,000,000 for
foster care improvements; (13) $4,500,000 for a new
bioterrorism and forensics laboratory; (14) $4,000,000 for
Marriage Development Accounts and marriage promotion; (15)
$4,000,000 for improvements to the Navy Yard Metro Station; and
(16) $15,000,000 for a new central library in the District of
Columbia.
Total Resources Available
Based on recommendations in the bill, a total of
$9,057,361,000 will be available to the District of Columbia
government during fiscal year 2007. Included in this figure are
appropriations from local funds, Federal grants, Federal
payments, and private and other funds. The financing of the
appropriations from District funds are generated from revenues
from various local taxes, fees, charges, and other collections
received by the District government.
GENERAL STATEMENT
The Committee has included funding for three new Federal-
local initiatives in the District of Columbia. These include:
(1) promoting and sustaining healthy marriages; (2) encouraging
literacy through the establishment of a new state-of-the-art
central library; and (3) enhancing transitional housing
opportunities for successful ex-offender reentry to the
community.
Promoting Healthy Marriages
The Committee understands that most children born and
raised in households where their biological parents are married
are more financially and emotionally stable. Given the enormous
benefits that accrue to children who are raised by their
married parents, the Committee believes that it is a moral and
societal imperative that our nation esteem, support, foster,
and encourage the institution of marriage.
The Committee is pleased to announce that the Mayor of the
District of Columbia will take important actions to encourage
marriage in the District of Columbia. These actions include:
(1) eliminating marriage penalties for low-income couples who
decide to wed; (2) increasing the earned income tax credit for
married couples in the District; and (3) assigning priority
status to married couples and their families for low-income and
federally funded housing. The Committee is also providing
$1,000,000 to the District of Columbia Department of Human
Services to support occupational training for married parents
to improve their prospects for full-time employment.
As a way to assist low-income married couples to save money
to pay for job training or education, buy a home or start their
own business, the Committee began providing funds to establish
``Marriage Development Accounts'' [MDAs] in the District of
Columbia last fiscal year. MDAs are available to married
couples who are citizens or legal residents of the District of
Columbia whose Federal adjusted gross income does not exceed
300 percent of Federal poverty level and whose net worth is
less than $10,000.
Participating couples have a high incentive to save because
their contributions will be matched at a ratio of 3:1 by the
Federal Government and partnering private institutions. As a
requirement of participation, couples receive training that
helps them repair their credit, set a budget and savings
schedule, and manage their money. The Committee is pleased with
the interest in MDAs and is providing funds to continue the
program during this fiscal year.
Recognizing the importance of grassroots support to ensure
the success of these efforts, the Committee is directing that
grantees use a portion of these funds to expand their network
of service providers by partnering with local churches, faith-
based organizations, and non-profit organizations. These
service providers will offer life skills training and marital
and pre-marital counseling.
Promoting Literacy
The Committee is troubled that the adult illiteracy rate in
the District of Columbia is 37 percent, and notes that the rate
is much higher in predominantly lower-income communities.
The Committee supports Mayor Anthony Williams' vision of a
new state-of-the art central library in the District of
Columbia. The Mayor has said that libraries are a key
foundation of our communities. They are anchors for children
who are learning to read; resource hubs for people wishing to
complete an education or earn a GED; places of literary
inspiration for future writers or those with a natural love for
reading; places to access and explore the Internet; and
knowledge centers for anyone wishing to pursue their hobbies or
dreams.
According to the Mayor, the District of Columbia central
library has been neglected for decades and is now in a state of
disrepair. Because of this, there is a significant and urgent
need for a new library. Therefore, the Committee is providing
$15,000,000 as a Federal contribution for a new library,
recognizing that the lion's share of the funds--approximately
$170,000,000 will come from local funds. The Committee is
informed that the site of the new central library will be at
the location of the old convention center.
The Committee agrees with the Mayor that a new library
system will serve as a gateway to learning and be a valuable
asset for the city. The benefits are clear. A state-of-the-art
library system would give all District residents access to the
latest books and technology, meeting and quiet rooms, enhanced
special collections, and valuable programming for adults and
children, including literacy and lifelong learning workshops.
By creating a 21st century library in the Nation's capital
with innovative programming and state-of-the-art technology,
the new central library will be recognized as a national model
setting the standard for library systems around the country.
The President agrees that a new central library is urgently
needed and has requested funding for this effort.
Reducing Prisoner Recidivism
The Committee is aware that every year 2,500 former
prisoners return home to the District. These returning
offenders are assigned to the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency for release plan investigations during their
parole or probation terms. Those who cannot identify a safe
place to live are assigned to halfway houses where their stays
are capped at 120 days.
The Committee strongly believes that reducing the
likelihood of homelessness for those exiting the halfway house
system is critical to combating recidivism among returning
prisoners. Therefore, the Committee has provided funds to
increase the amount of transitional housing for returning
offenders.
The Committee also believes that mentors can help ex-
offenders better reintegrate into their communities by
providing them with the emotional, psychological, spiritual,
and motivational support they need. Mentors can help ex-
offenders find employment, make sure that they attend
counseling sessions, and encourage them to reconcile with
family members.
Financial Condition of the District of Columbia
The Committee commends the Mayor, the City Council, and the
Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia in
improving its bond rating from the junk bond status of the mid-
1990's to investment grade status every year since February
2001. The Committee notes that Wall Street bond rating agencies
have upgraded the city's rating to A. This accomplishment is
due in large part to three factors: (1) consistent trends of
increased financial reserves, (2) stringent budget monitoring
and controls in the 3 fiscal years following elimination of the
control board, and (3) growth in taxable assessed values.
D.C. Water and Sewer Authority [WASA].--The Congress is
aware of a conflict between the statutes authorizing the
independent financial oversight authority of the D.C. Chief
Financial Officer [CFO] and the WASA Establishment and
Reorganization Act of 1996 and is examining the necessary
legislative actions. The Committee will work with the
appropriate authorizing committees and the District to develop
permanent legislation governing WASA's financial management and
accountability.
Kenilworth Park.--The Committee directs the Chief Financial
Officer of the District of Columbia to provide quarterly
financial reports on obligations and expenditures of all funds
provided for improvements at Kenilworth Park in the District of
Columbia in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2002 (Public Law 107-96; 115 Stat. 929) and the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003
(Public Law 108-7; 117 Stat. 112). The Committee expects these
funds to be used to create a regional youth recreation park and
urges the Mayor to expedite improvements at the park to benefit
the community.
Historic Preservation in the District of Columbia
The Committee urges the District of Columbia Historic
Preservation Office to consider funding applications for
construction and renovation projects for non-governmental
historic sites on the National Mall.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Federal Funds
A total of $597,000,000 in Federal funds are estimated to
be available to the District of Columbia government, the
District of Columbia Courts, the District of Columbia Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency, and other D.C.
entities. A total of $2,020,101,000 in Federal funds will be
received by the District government from the various Federal
grant programs. In addition, the District of Columbia receives
Federal reimbursements from such programs as Medicaid and
Medicare.
The following table summarizes the various Federal funds
estimated to be available to the District government during
fiscal year 2007:
FEDERAL FUNDS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 2007 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support.......... 33,200
Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security 8,533
Costs................................................
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts.... 206,629
Federal Payment for Defender Services................. 43,475
Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender 183,653
Supervision Agency...................................
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Water and 7,000
Sewer Authority......................................
Federal Payment for the Anacostia Waterfront 5,000
Initiative...........................................
Federal Payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating 1,300
Council..............................................
Federal Payment for Transportation Assistance......... 1,000
Federal Payment for Foster Care and Adoption 2,000
Improvements.........................................
Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer........ 5,000
Federal Payment for a Forensics Lab................... 4,500
Federal Payment for School Improvement................ 40,000
Federal Payment for Marriage Development and 4,000
Improvement..........................................
-----------------
Total, Federal funds in bill.................... 597,000
Federal Grants........................................ 2,020,101
-----------------
Total, Federal Funds............................ 2,617,101
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENT TUITION SUPPORT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $32,868,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 35,100,000
House allowance......................................... 35,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 33,200,000
The Committee recommends $33,200,000 in Federal funds for
the District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program, an
increase of $332,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level
and $1,900,000 below the President's budget request. On
November 12, 1999, Public Law 106-98, the District of Columbia
College Access Act of 1999, was signed into law. The Act
established the Tuition Assistance Program, a grant program
under the direction of the Mayor of the District of Columbia,
in consultation with the Secretary of Education.
Under the Act, grants are awarded to District residents for
undergraduate education within 3 years of graduating or
obtaining a graduate equivalent degree. The applicant must be a
District resident for 12 consecutive months before the academic
year of the award. Grants pay the difference between in-State
and out-of-State tuition at public universities, with a cap of
$10,000 per student per school year, and a total cap of
$50,000. Grants may also be used for tuition at private
colleges in the metropolitan area and at any private
historically black college or university, with a cap of $2,500
per student per year, and a total cap of $12,500. In addition,
the District of Columbia College Access Improvement Act of 2001
(Public Law 107-157) expanded the Tuition Assistance Program to
individuals who enroll in an institution of higher education
more than 3 years after graduating from a secondary school and
to individuals who attend private, historically black colleges
and universities nationwide.
Every year since the inception of the tuition assistance
grant program, the Federal Government has provided sufficient
funds to allow all eligible participants to attend out-of-State
colleges and universities at the in-State tuition rate. The
Committee is pleased to note that 55 percent of all
participants are the first members of their families to attend
college and that 75 percent of students surveyed at one of the
largest schools in the city said that the program influenced
their decision to pursue postsecondary education. Clearly, the
program is working well and more and more District students are
gaining the opportunity to attend colleges and universities of
their choice.
The Committee recognizes that this program has enabled many
District of Columbia residents to pursue post-secondary
educational opportunities. The program allows the District to
provide similar opportunities to D.C. residents that State-
level university systems provide in all States.
The Committee remains concerned that the significant annual
funding increases in a brief 2-year span signal that program
costs have the potential of growing well beyond the level at
which future Federal funding may be available and sustainable.
To address this concern, the Committee directs the Mayor and
the District's State Education Office officials to work closely
with its Senate and House authorizing and appropriations
Committees to immediately take steps to institute effective
cost containment measures and regularly report to Congress
about the effects of these efforts. The Committee further
directs the District to fully explore non-Federal sources of
additional funds to augment the Federal investment to meet
program needs.
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $216,723,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 196,629,000
House allowance......................................... 219,629,000
Committee recommendation................................ 206,629,000
The Committee recommends $206,629,000 for the District of
Columbia Courts. This is $10,094,000 less than the fiscal year
2006 enacted level and $10,000,000 above the President's budget
request. As part of the District of Columbia Revitalization Act
of 1997, the Federal Government began to finance the D.C.
Courts. This includes funding for the operations of the D.C.
Court of Appeals, Superior Court, and the Court System. By law,
the annual budget includes estimates of the expenditures for
the operations of the Courts prepared by the Joint Committee on
Judicial Administration and the President's recommendation for
funding the Courts' operations.
Court Operations
The Committee recommends $158,700,000 for the Courts'
operations, $2,348,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level
and the same as the President's request.
Court Capital Expenditures
The Committee recommends $60,929,000 for capital
improvements, a total of $10,600,000 above the President's
budget request and $19,800,000 below the fiscal year 2006
level.
The increased funds for capital expenditures will allow the
Courts to continue to renovate, improve, and expand court
facilities. The Committee recognizes that the relocation of the
Court of Appeals from its existing location in the Moultrie
Courthouse to the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue is a
critical step towards meeting the space needs of the D.C. Court
of Appeals and providing critical additional space for Superior
Court operations, including the newly formed Family Court in
the Moultrie Building. The Committee understands that the
readaptation of the Old Courthouse for modern day use as a
functional courthouse includes the restoration of this national
historic landmark, expansion of the courthouse, and
construction of an underground parking garage west of the
historic building.
This increase will also enable the Courts to continue
implementation of the Integrated Justice Information System
[IJIS] and allow the Courts to upgrade fire and security alarm
systems.
Transfer Authority
The Committee authorizes the Courts to transfer up to
$1,000,000 of the operations funds provided in the Federal
Payment to the D.C. Courts among the accounts within the
Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts
appropriation. This flexibility will be especially important in
implementing Family Court reforms. The Committee authorizes the
Courts to transfer up to 4 percent of the capital funds
provided. This flexibility will enable the Courts to prioritize
renovations and construction projects.
Reporting Requirements
The Courts are directed to submit monthly reports, through
the General Services Administration, to the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations, within 15 calendar days after the
end of each month, on the status of obligations by object class
and a monthly personnel summary by position, full-time
equivalent positions, and program/function. The obligation
report should show, at a minimum, the original operating plan,
current operating plan, obligations year to date, percent
obligated, planned obligations year to date, percentage
deviation from plan year to date, projected total obligations
end of year, and projected surplus/deficit.
In addition, the obligation report shall: (1) include a
breakdown of expenditures for the Counsel for Child Abuse and
Neglect Program and the program of representation of indigents
in criminal cases; (2) include a monthly breakdown of
expenditures for the D.C. Courts' capital improvements; and (3)
where year-to-date obligations exceed or fall below the plan
estimates by 1 percent or more, include an explanation of why a
category is over- or under-budgeted.
Financial Plan.--The Executive Officer of the District of
Columbia Courts shall provide a financial plan of the fiscal
year 2007 enacted level for operations and capital improvements
of the D.C. Courts to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and Senate no later than March 31,
2007. The financial plan shall detail by object class the
planned expenditure of the Courts' appropriation, describing
any new initiatives or deviation from the conference report.
The Committee shall provide a joint House-Senate letter of
approval to the Courts after review of the financial plan. The
Courts must provide 30 days notice to the Committee in order to
deviate from the financial plan after approval of such plan by
Congress.
DEFENDER SERVICES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $43,560,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 43,475,000
House allowance......................................... 43,475,000
Committee recommendation................................ 43,475,000
The Committee recommends $43,475,000 for Defender Services
in the District of Columbia, which provides for attorneys for
indigent defendants, child abuse and guardianship cases
administered by the D.C. Courts. This is the same as the
President's request and $85,000 below the fiscal year 2006
enacted level. This funding will allow D.C. attorneys and
investigators to receive the same hourly rate as their Federal
counterparts.
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $169,839,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 181,653,000
House allowance......................................... 181,653,000
Committee recommendation................................ 183,653,000
The Committee recommends $183,653,000 for the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA]. This
recommendation is $2,000,000 above the President's budget
request and $13,814,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted
level.
The District of Columbia Revitalization Act of 1997
established CSOSA, assuming the functions of the District's
pretrial services, adult probation, parole, and adult offender
supervision functions. The mission of CSOSA for the District of
Columbia is to increase public safety, prevent crime, reduce
recidivism, and support the fair administration of justice in
close collaboration with the community.
The Revitalization Act relieved the District of Columbia of
``state-level'' financial responsibilities and restructured a
number of criminal justice functions, including pretrial
services, parole, and adult probation. Following passage of the
Revitalization Act, under the direction of a trustee appointed
by the U.S. Attorney General, three separate and disparately
functioning entities of the District of Columbia government
were reorganized into one Federal agency. CSOSA assumed its
probation function from the D.C. Superior Court and its parole
function from the D.C. Board of Parole. The Revitalization Act
transferred the parole supervision functions to CSOSA and the
parole decisionmaking functions to the U.S. Parole Commission
[USPC]. On August 5, 1998, the parole determination function
was transferred to the USPC, and on August 4, 2000, the USPC
assumed responsibility for parole revocation and modification
with respect to felons. The CSOSA appropriation is comprised of
three components: The Community Supervision Program [CSP], the
District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency [PSA], and the
Public Defender Service [PDS] for the District of Columbia. PDS
is a federally funded independent D.C. agency responsible for
the defense of indigent individuals and receives funding by
transfer from the CSOSA appropriation. The CSP is responsible
for supervision of offenders (either on probation or parole),
and the PSA is responsible for supervising pretrial defendants.
The Committee understands that the majority of the
additional funds it is providing will be used to increase the
capacity of residential substance abuse treatment for offenders
at Karrick Hall from 21 to 100 participants. These resources
will fund the level of treatment slots at the fully authorized
level. The Committee recognizes that most offenders have
serious drug addiction problems and must receive treatment in
order to lead productive, crime-free lives. The Committee is
pleased that CSOSA has made such steady progress in increasing
the drug treatment capacity for offenders.
The funding provided will also enable CSOSA to enhance its
community-based and sanctions-based supervision strategy and
support the fair administration of justice by providing the
courts and the U.S. Parole Commission with timely, accurate and
complete information required in their decisionmaking process.
Prison Reentrant Housing Initiative
The Committee believes strongly that reducing the
likelihood of homelessness for returning offenders is critical
to combating recidivism. Therefore, the Committee intends that
the funds provided above the President's request be used to
expand the availability of transitional housing for ex-
offenders. The Committee is aware that ex-offenders are faced
with rebuilding their lives as they seek to join the workforce,
support their families and become productive members of
society. Despite successes in delivery of social and health
care services, there is a very pressing need for affordable
housing. Stable housing increases the likelihood that the
offender will successfully complete his or her term of parole
or supervised release, find and maintain employment, maintain
family relationships, and access the programs and services that
contribute to successful reentry. CSOSA originally brought this
issue to the attention of the D.C. Department of Housing and
Community Development [DHCD] in December 2004, noting the
direct correlation between stable housing and offenders'
compliance with the conditions of community supervision. An
important aspect of supervision is the offender's growing
awareness of, and participation in, community-based social
services; this occurs during the term of supervision and
constitutes a critical stage of the reentry process. Currently,
the D.C. reentry initiative offers individuals exiting the
criminal justice system direct services and access to 30
community-based nonprofit organizations. Unity health care
provides health services through a clinic designed specifically
for reentrants. The Department of Employment Services provides
job readiness and job placement services at its offices, and
case workers assist reentrants in obtaining GED certification
and enrollment in college courses at UDC.
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $29,535,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 32,710,000
House allowance......................................... 32,710,000
Committee recommendation................................ 32,710,000
The Committee is providing $32,710,000 for the Public
Defender Service in the District of Columbia, which is the same
as the President's request and $3,175,000 more than the fiscal
year 2006 enacted level.
The mission of the Public Defender Service [PDS] is to
provide and promote quality legal representation to indigent
adults and children facing a loss of liberty in the District of
Columbia and thereby protect society's interest in the fair
administration of justice. The Public Defender Service for the
District of Columbia enjoys a national reputation for
excellence in the delivery of indigent defense services and is
often cited as a model for other public defender agencies.
Beginning in 1960 as the Legal Aid Agency, the agency was
expanded and the name was changed to the Public Defender
Service in 1970. PDS is a Federally funded, independent legal
organization governed by an 11-member Board of Trustees. In
previous years, the Committee has provided funds for PDS
through the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
Beginning this year, the Committee is funding PDS as a separate
line-item, recognizing its status as an independent agency.
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR SECURITY COSTS RELATED
TO THE PRESENCE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $13,365,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 8,533,000
House allowance......................................... 8,533,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,533,000
The Committee is aware that the District police, fire, and
emergency personnel have had to provide security for a number
of events due to the fact that the District of Columbia is the
seat of the Federal Government and headquarters of many
international organizations. Recently, the need for the
District of Columbia to provide security has increased, thereby
increasing overtime costs for personnel and diverting police
from neighborhood patrols. The President has supported
reimbursing the District for these costs. The Committee
recommends $8,533,000 for this purpose which is the same as the
President's request and $4,832,000 below the fiscal year 2006
level.
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $28,908,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance......................................... 5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Committee is providing $5,000,000 to the Chief
Financial Officer of the District of Columbia for education,
job-training, security, economic development, and health
projects in the District of Columbia. The Committee is
providing funds for the following projects in the following
amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children's National Medical Center for facilities....... $500,000
Children's National Medical Center for African-American 250,000
cord-blood bank........................................
D.C. Poison Control Center.............................. 250,000
Unity Healthcare for medical care tracking technology... 250,000
Boys and Girls Clubs of D.C. for facilities repairs..... 200,000
Father McKenna Homeless Shelter......................... 100,000
East of the River Police-Clergy Partnership............. 200,000
Youth Leadership Foundation............................. 200,000
National Council of La Raza in the District of Columbia. 350,000
Mary's Center........................................... 200,000
Gospel Rescue Mission................................... 100,000
Center for Inspired Teaching for teacher training....... 50,000
CentroNia to expand academic enrichment model for early 100,000
childhood education....................................
Discovery Creek Children's Museum of Washington for Its 100,000
Wise to Immunize Project...............................
Girl Scout Council of the Nation's Capital for Young 100,000
Leaders Program........................................
Historic building restoration and renovation............ 500,000
Green Door for the Homeless-to-Workplace Initiative..... 100,000
Kidsave DC Weekend Miracles for a program to support 100,000
older foster youth.....................................
KIPP DC: Will Academy Partnership with Scott Montgomery 400,000
Elementary to support the first charter-DCPS
partnership............................................
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy for a 100,000
continuing initiative with UCAN........................
Southeastern University for facilities capital 100,000
improvements...........................................
Youth baseball partnership with Payne Elementary School. 50,000
Washington Area Women's Foundation Stepping Stones 500,000
Initiative for low-income families.....................
Whitman-Walker Clinic for facility planning and 100,000
development............................................
Washington Latin Public Charter School for a summer 50,000
enrichment program.....................................
Washington National Opera for education programs only in 50,000
D.C....................................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR THE ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT INITIATIVE IN THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,970,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 5,000,000
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to continue to
implement the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, which is
$2,030,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The
President did not request any funds for this initiative. These
funds will support the construction of a multi-use hiker and
biker trail system along both sides of the Anacostia River in
the District of Columbia. This recreational amenity and
transportation alternative will help connect neighborhoods and
transform the Anacostia River into a great civic center for the
city. The Committee understands that the 20-mile interconnected
trail network will provide pedestrian and bicycle-friendly
access to the shores of the Anacostia River and will serve to
connect the regional trail system in Maryland to the National
Mall. With alternative corridors and loops to choose from,
users of the trail will find a variety of experiences and
connections to other regional and national trails, including
Fort Circle Trail, Bladensburg Trail, the East Coast Greenway
and the Potomac Heritage Scenic Trail.
The Committee continues to support the use of innovative
bridges along the Anacostia bike trail and urges the District's
Department of Transportation to consider using this new
technology in other road projects throughout the city.
The Committee also intends that $2,000,000 of the funds
provided will be used for infrastructure upgrades to revitalize
and increase access to the area.
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $6,930,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 7,000,000
House allowance......................................... 7,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 7,000,000
The Committee is providing $7,000,000, to be matched 100
percent with local funds, for the Water and Sewer Authority
[WASA] to implement the Combined Sewer Overflow Program. This
is $70,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2006 and the same as the President's request. The Committee
notes that this funding will assist WASA in designing a new
system to address combined sewer overflows. The combined sewer
system, which serves 33 percent of the District, was
constructed in 1890 by the Federal Government. Because of its
age and capacity contraints, the system discharges sanitary
waste and storm-water into the surrounding rivers approximately
60-75 times per year during heavy rains.
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR TRANSPORTATION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $990,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 1,000,000
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for transportation
assistance in the District of Columbia, which is $10,000 above
the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The President did not
request funds for this purpose.
The Committee intends that these resources be used for
expenses related to phase II implementation of the District's
downtown circulator transit system. This new surface
transportation service is providing high-frequency, high-
quality, and low-cost service to connect the east and west
sides of downtown, the White House, the National Mall and
monuments area, the Capitol Complex, Union Station, and
Georgetown. The Committee understands that these funds will be
matched 100 percent by the District of Columbia and by the
private sector (led by the Downtown Business Improvement
District group). The Committee understands that Phase I of the
Circulator is now operating and will include the following
routes: (1) north-south along 7th Street, NW, between the
Convention Center and the SW Waterfront; and (2) east-west
between Georgetown and Union Station. The Committee directs the
District of Columbia Department of Transportation to report on
progress to minimize idling of buses and traffic congestion.
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR FOSTER CARE IMPROVEMENT AND POST-ADOPTIVE SERVICES
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $1,980,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000
The Committee understands that in the District of Columbia,
the Child and Family Services Agency [CFSA] is responsible for
protecting approximately 3,000 children in ``out-of-home''
placements, and another 5,000 children in ``in-home''
placements. During its history, many children in CFSA's care
have languished for extended periods of time due to managerial
shortcomings and long-standing organizational divisiveness in
the city. As a result, the agency was placed in receivership in
1995. In June 2001, the court removed CFSA from receivership
and put the agency under probation. That probationary period
ended in January 2003.
Concerned about CFSA's troubled history, the Committee
began a Federal foster care initiative in fiscal year 2004
which focused on improving several critical areas. These
critical needs are: (1) intensive, early intervention when
children enter care; (2) early mental health assessments and
mental health services for all children in foster care; (3)
recruitment and retention of qualified social workers; (4)
recruitment and retention of foster parents; and (5) improved
computer tracking of all children in foster care.
Loan Repayment for Social Workers
The Committee is providing $1,000,000 for the repayment of
student loans for social workers at CFSA. The Committee
understands that the higher the caseload per social worker, the
lower the quality of service to each of the caseworker's
children. The District, like many cities, suffers from a high
turnover rate of social workers. In fact, the national turnover
rate has doubled since 1991. Clearly, the relatively low pay
and difficult working conditions of social workers has resulted
in a child welfare workforce crisis.
The Committee recognizes that steps must be taken to
encourage more workers to enter the child welfare workforce and
improve the salaries, working conditions, and training of
workers. Student loan repayment is aiding in the retention and
improvement of conditions for the District's social workers.
Post Adoptive Services
The Committee is providing $750,000 to assist CFSA in
providing post permanency services to adoptive parents and
guardians to ensure that children remain in stable homes. These
resources will fund mental health services, respite support,
training seminars, one-on-one counseling support, and a post-
permanency resource center.
Recruitment and Retention of Foster Parents
The Committee is providing $250,000 to recruit and retain
foster parents. The Committee recognizes that CFSA has
experienced difficulties recruiting and retaining an adequate
number of appropriate, qualified foster parents. This lack of
sufficient numbers of foster homes has given rise to so-called
group homes in the District.
One reason for the shortage of foster parents is the lack
of availability of respite care in the District. The Committee
has been informed that foster parents do not have the same
opportunities for respite as biological parents. Foster parents
cannot merely send their children to spend the weekend with a
relative or family friend, or to visit with a classmate at his
or her home. Foster parents must seek out persons who have met
many agency-established criteria. Therefore, foster parents
often care for their children--many of whom have special
needs--without significant breaks.
Of the funds provided, the Committee intends that the
Washington Council of Governments, which has years of
experience with the D.C. foster care system, provide the direct
service implementation of this respite proposal and that the
Foster and Adoptive Parents Advocacy Center provide the
oversight, quality control, and evaluation of the program. The
Committee intends that resources shall provide: (1) emergency
respite, which would be provided with less than 1 month's
notice; (2) planned respite, which would be planned at least 1
month in advance; and (3) ongoing respite, which would be at
pre-established meeting times and places, e.g., Saturday
programs, enrichment programs, and field trips.
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $39,600,000
Budget estimate, 2007................................... 40,800,000
House allowance......................................... 40,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,000,000
The Committee has included $40,000,000 to augment and
improve educational opportunities for all students in the
District of Columbia. This is $400,000 above the fiscal year
2006 enacted level and $800,000 below the President's budget
request. This initiative is comprised of three interrelated
components: investing in excellence in traditional public
schools; expanding choice through high quality public charter
schools; and offering opportunity scholarships for low-income
students in under-performing schools. Therefore, of the funds
provided, $13,000,000 is to provide a scholarship program for
low-income children in under-performing schools; $13,000,000 is
for the development of quality public charter schools;
$13,000,000 is to strengthen leadership and instructional
excellence and increase student achievement at District of
Columbia Public Schools in accordance with the No Child Left
Behind Act; and $1,000,000 is for administrative expenses.
Improving Public Education
The Committee notes that the Department of Education has
informed the Superintendent of DCPS that the Department has
serious and continuing concerns with DCPS' administration of
federally funded education programs. As a result of the
problems identified in several audits and reviews, the
Department has designated DCPS a ``high-risk'' grantee for all
the grants it receives from the Department.
For a number of years, independent single audit findings
and Department program reviews have identified significant
problems that DCPS has had in meeting some of the most
fundamental program accountability requirements, including
implementing appropriate financial, recordkeeping, and internal
control systems and procedures. Many of the problems identified
affect the delivery of services to students. In fact, DCPS is
currently at the lowest levels of state educational agency
performance as measured by National Assessment of Educational
Progress scores. DCPS's average scores in the 2005 Trial Urban
District Assessment (for reading and for math at both tested
levels) were lower than every other participating city school
district.
The most significant findings from these audits and reviews
are:
--Fiscal management weaknesses, including:
--Lack of timely allocation and use of Federal funds
--Expenditures for salaries without appropriate
documentation
--Lack of proper controls for management of property and
equipment
--Lack of proper procurement controls
--Lack of record keeping for and funding to charter schools
--Inadequate monitoring of subgrantees
--Repeated material findings in single audits
--Management information systems inadequate to meet Federal
reporting requirements
--Continuing noncompliance with IDEA program requirements.
The Committee recognizes that the ``high-risk designation
is a very serious matter, and it expects that DCPS will take
immediate steps to correct these problems and to demonstrate
significant improvements. In light of this designation, the
Committee is not confident in DCPS' ability to expend Federal
resources provided by this Committee. As a result, the
Committee is appropriating $13,000,000 directly to the District
of Columbia State Education Office to be used for the following
purposes: (1) $5,000,000 to hire, place, and train highly
qualified teachers and principals in District of Columbia
public schools; (2) $5,500,000 for training and materials to
expand the availability of advanced placement courses and for
subsequent testing, and to expand vocational and technical
programs which enhance postsecondary opportunities for
students; (3) $500,000 to support the Superintendent's Master
Education Plan; and (4) $2,000,000 for the High Performing
Incentive Award program. The Committee believes that
expenditures for these specific purposes can be directly linked
to classroom conditions, can be readily tracked, and whose
impact can be measured in terms of student performance. The
Committee intends that in order to be meaningful, the High
Performing Incentive Awards be at least $200,000 to each
selected entity.
Improving Facilities and Efficiency.--The Committee has
raised concerns with the District in public hearings in 2005
and prior, about the inefficiency of maintaining at least 5
million square feet of underutilized or unused space in DCPS
facilities, identified by independent entities. The Committee
supports the Superintendent and the D.C. Board of Education
[BOE] goal to consolidate underutilized space in D.C. Public
School facilities, specifically the BOE decision to consolidate
1 million square feet of space by the school year 2006-2007 and
consolidate an additional 2 million square feet of space by
school year 2007-2008.
The Committee is encouraged by the BOE and the
Superintendent's decision for the first round of school
consolidations including closing five public school facilities
and leasing space in eight additional public schools for co-
location with public charter schools. The Committee strongly
supports more efficient use of public school facilities and the
lease of unused space to public charter schools. The District
has estimated $8,000,000 in revenue in fiscal year 2007 from
leases of unused space. The Committee supports DCPS efforts to
generate additional revenue and more effectively target
resources to expanding quality educational opportunities and to
improving facilities.
The Committee supports the Superintendent's proposal to
establish a dual language expansion and replication of Oyster
Elementary School with Adams Elementary School, creating the
first pre-kindergarten through eighth grade program at the two
schools. This replication model will also establish a
demonstration site for principals and families to learn about
the highly effective program. The Committee is committed to
establishing this model in school year 2007-2008 and expects
DCPS to work with the Oyster community in developing this
replication model to ensure it supports this excellent program.
In addition to the necessary school consolidations, the
Council of the District of Columbia committed to better
facilities in the School Modernization Financing Act of 2006.
The legislation launches a $2,500,000,000, 10-year school
modernization program where priority is given to public school
facilities which engage in partnerships with public charter
schools and other District agencies. The Committee commends
this action and supports this type of leveraging of public
funds to maximize the benefit in the community. The Committee
believes that any facilities modernization plan must continue
to place a high priority eliminating excess capacity.
Oversight Structure.--The Committee notes for the record
that the current management and accountability structure in the
District of Columbia Public School system commingles the
functions of the local education agency [LEA] and State
education agency [SEA] and vests both in the D.C. Board of
Education [BOE]. Under this structure, there are no clear
delineations in funding, reporting, accounting, or staffing.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Education designated DCPS a
``high risk grantee'' for Federal funding and this structure is
a contributing factor in the Department's lack of confidence.
In almost every other jurisdiction, the LEA is directly
accountable to the SEA and the SEA is responsible for providing
independent oversight accountability and support to the LEA.
This is not so in the District. In the District, the State
Education Office manages some Federal funding and programs, but
has no authority over public schools. This single tiered system
continues to frustrate the District's efforts to comply with
Federal accountability standards set by the No Child Left
Behind Act [NCLB]. Specifically, the District's accountability
system lacks sufficient measures and interventions for schools
failing to make ``adequate yearly progress'' as defined by the
NCLB. In addition, the current structure poses additional
accountability issues for public charter schools, who are
monitored by the SEA in the District, instead of the LEA as in
other jurisdictions.
The Committee directs the D.C. Board of Education to
contract with an independent entity to develop legislation to
separate the D.C. local education agency functions from the
State education agency functions by establishing or designating
a State-level entity to assume all State-level education
functions and the SEA authority, separate from all LEAs. The
independent entity, in consultation with the BOE, the Mayor,
the Council of the District of Columbia, the Superintendent of
DCPS, the State Education Office, and the D.C. Public Charter
School Board shall develop legislation that is consistent with
the following: implementing the State planning and
accountability requirements of NCLB; best practices for State
agency organization and functions; and Federal requirements for
State roles and responsibilities. This proposed legislation
shall be submitted to the Congress no later than 120 days after
enactment of this act to inform congressional actions to
clarify State-level functions.
Evaluation of D.C. Public School System.--The Committee
directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to conduct a
comprehensive review of the District of Columbia Public School
System's personnel, management, and systems management. The
review should assess DCPS's financial management and
accounting, information technology systems, Federal grants
management, and reporting processes. The Committee directs GAO
to work with the Department of Education to determine what
improvements DCPS needs to make to eliminate its ``high risk''
designation. The Committee directs GAO to report on these
findings by May 1, 2007.
Strengthening Charter Schools
The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for public charter
schools in the District of Columbia, directed to specific
initiatives which will strengthen schools, enhance capacity,
improve academic quality, and create a network of integrated
services. The Committee recommends the following allocation of
resources: $6,000,000 for the Direct Loan Fund for Charter
Schools; $3,500,000 for continuation of the City Build Charter
School Program; $1,000,000 for the Public Education Improvement
Incentive Award program; $1,050,000 for grants to public
charter schools for co-location with DCPS buildings; $1,000,000
for a quality initiative; and $450,000 for administration
within the State Education Office.
The Committee has played a significant role in the
development of public charter schools in the District of
Columbia. In school year 2006-2007, there will be 58 public
charter schools educating 25 percent of the student population,
giving the District the distinction of having more charter
schools per capital than any other city or State in the Nation.
The Committee received requests from several public charter
schools in the District for capital improvements or
construction funding. Instead of earmarking these funds, the
Committee is providing $6,000,000 for D.C. government programs
to provide financing for public charter schools to improve
facilities. The Committee has reviewed proposals for funding
and recommends that the Office of Public Charter School
Financing and Support give particular consideration to
proposals submitted by the following schools: E.L. Haynes
Public Charter School; Friendship Tech Prep Academy in
Anacostia; KIPP DC preschool through grade 12 Campus; and
Washington Latin School.
The Committee recommends that the Mayor conduct an
assessment of the current open enrollment and lottery system
for public charter schools in the District. This assessment
should identify and recommend a solution to challenges in the
open enrollment system, including supporting neighborhood
schools, partnerships, or dual-language programs.
The Committee directs the Mayor to provide a quarterly
financial report to the Committees on Appropriations on the
performance of the Direct Loan Fund and Credit Enhancement for
Public Charter Schools. The report shall include: (1) a summary
of obligations, expenditures, and the purpose therefore; (2)
the public charter schools benefiting from such funds and their
expenditures; and (3) the investment of all funds, both local
and Federal, and interest earnings from such investments.
The Committee is informed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission [SEC] has frozen all assets of a certain business
entity that the District had selected to conduct the banking
transactions necessary to run the Charter School Revolving Loan
and Credit Enhancement Programs. Assets held by this business
entity include $9,600,000 in Federal funds appropriated to the
District of Columbia. Consequently, while the investigation is
ongoing, these funds are not available to the District. In
addition to the SEC's investigation, the U.S. Attorney's Office
is conducting its own investigation. Further, the D.C. Office
of the Inspector General, the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer and the D.C. Office of the Attorney General are all
coordinating various investigations into this matter. Whether
and when the $9,600,000 in funds will be made available to the
District must be determined by the SEC.
The Committee understands that the District has agreed to
take steps to ensure that the credit enhancement and direct
loan programs are provided with the resources necessary to
continue operations as though not affected by the freezing of
funds by the SEC. In addition, the District has undertaken
substantial reform of the programs since the Office of Public
Charter School Financing and Support was placed within the
State Education Office in fiscal year 2005. The State Education
Office is instituting new processes and protections for the
program and is working with the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer to restructure its investment strategy.
The Committee encourages the Mayor to ensure that there is
no disruption in the program to provide financing to qualified
public charter schools and directs the Mayor to replenish funds
if disruptions seem likely.
Quality.--The D.C. Board of Education voted in June 2006 to
impose a moratorium on issuing additional charters in order to
evaluate the BOE's desire to continue authorizing public
charter schools. The BOE has authorized 25 schools and
currently oversees 17 public charter schools in the District of
Columbia.
Congress authorized, in the D.C. School Reform Act of 1995,
the BOE and an independent entity, the D.C. Public Charter
School Board [DCPCSB], as eligible chartering authorities (or
authorizers) to authorize and oversee public charter schools in
the District. Congress also allowed the Council of the District
of Columbia to designate a third eligible chartering authority
through legislation and for several Federal agencies to explore
the feasibility of authorizing public charter schools in the
District.
The Committee supports the benefits of inherent competition
among multiple chartering authorities and recognizes that the
District is only the second jurisdiction nationwide to have
this structure. However, the Committee has raised concern with
the quality of oversight performed on public charter schools
and questioned if the BOE would be more efficient focusing only
on DCPS. The Committee welcomes the current examination of the
chartering authority structure and strongly urges the BOE,
Mayor, Council and charter school community to make the goal of
quality public charter schools the highest priority in
considering any legislative action. The Committee would
consider, with the appropriate authorizing committees of
Congress, legislation to modify the chartering authority
structure, including amending the D.C. School Reform Act to
designate another authorizer.
The Committee directs the U.S. Government Accountability
Office [GAO] to assess, as part of the biannual report to the
Congress on the D.C. public charter school authorizers, the BOE
moratorium and to make recommendations on what entity should
assume responsibility for existing BOE public charter schools.
Consistent with Committee direction in 2005, the D.C.
charter school authorizing boards, the BOE and the DCPCSB, have
taken necessary steps to ensure that each authorized public
charter school has an annual financial audit consistent with
standards set by the D.C. Chief Financial Officer. The
Committee encourages oversight of the financial accountability
and transparency of the authorizing boards.
The Committee noted in the fiscal year 2006 report concern
that the current law prohibits authorizers from revoking a
charter at any time for failure to meet the public charter
school's academic performance goals, authorizers may only
revoke charters for financial or management concerns. The law
governing charter school authorization and oversight should
make academic achievement paramount.
Facilities.--Access to appropriate facilities is a major
challenge of public charter schools. The Committee is
encouraged that public charter schools will receive equal
access to public facilities and financing. The following are
specific areas of concern for the Committee.
The Superintendent's recommendation for the first phase of
school consolidations or rightsizing proposed that unused
public school space be leased to public charter schools and the
revenue be used to improve the facilities in D.C. Public
Schools. The Committee strongly supports this effort and has
dedicated $1,050,000 of the $13,000,000 for public charter
schools to support improving facilities occupied by public
charter schools. The Committee strongly encourages the
Superintendent to use a transparent process for leasing unused
DCPS facilities to public charter schools consistent with the
right of first refusal in the 1995 D.C. School Reform Act (D.C.
Code 38-1802.09).
The Committee supports DCPS efforts to facilitate co-
location of public charter schools and DCPS facilities to
enable the District to better utilize its school facilities in
a cost efficient manner. The Superintendent's recommendation
for school consolidations or rightsizing proposes seven DCPS
schools for co-location with a public charter school. The
Committee was disappointed that a proposal in 2005 to make
space in 10 DCPS schools available to public charter schools
resulted in only two co-locations of public charter schools and
DCPS. The Committee strongly supports partnerships and co-
locations which maximize the benefit of public funds, and will
look favorably upon such partnerships to further leverage local
funding provided through the D.C. School Modernization
Financing Act of 2006. The District requires that rental
payments from a charter school be for the use of the host
school, which provides a strong incentive to lease
underutilized space (D.C. Code Sec. 38-1831.01(b)(2)) because
rental payments from charter schools provide a reliable revenue
source for host schools.
Surplus Public School Facilities.--In March 2000 the
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority transferred jurisdiction of 38 public
school properties to the control of the Mayor of the District
of Columbia.
The School Reform Act of 1995 provided a preference for
charter schools to obtain surplus property to alleviate
identified lack of appropriate school space. The Committee
strongly supported the legal preference in its fiscal year 2003
and 2004 Committee reports. In addition, Public Law 108-335,
section 342(c) requires that charter schools are provided a
right of first offer on the disposition of any property. The
Committee is disappointed that the Mayor and the Council of the
District of Columbia were unable to make more than two
additional surplus former public school buildings available to
public charter schools in the last year.
The Committee report 109-106 requested a report from the
Mayor of the District of Columbia, in consultation with the
Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, on the
current use of all 38 original surplus properties, the market
rate value of each property, and the profit generated from any
prior sales to more fully understand the benefit to the city.
This report was not submitted.
The Committee strongly believes that proceeds from sales or
leases of surplus public school property should be deposited
into a segregated account for school facilities improvement to
enable the Superintendent to improve the entire system at a
time when facilities funding is limited.
This year public charter schools spent $16,000,000 on the
private real estate market to renovate facilities for
educational use. The Committee remains concerned about the lack
of appropriate educational space for public charter schools
while former public school facilities are used for other
purposes. The Committee expects that additional surplus public
school facilities will be made available expeditiously to
charter schools, consistent with the right of first offer
required under Section 342(c) of Public Law 108-335.
City Build Charter School Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $3,500,000 to continue the City Build
Charter School Program consistent with an independent study
conducted in 2006. The program shall first identify communities
which have the greatest near term potential of attracting or
retaining residents as ``City Build Communities''; then the
Mayor may solicit proposals from public charter schools to
locate in City Build Communities. The Committee believes that
public charter schools which demonstrate community service
activities, such as family literacy programs, should receive
priority in future grants. In addition, the Committee continues
to strongly encourage the Mayor of the District of Columbia and
the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development to give
priority and to highly leverage public funds to projects which
include charter schools or other educational space in future
development in the District. The Committee is reviewing the
management of the City Build Program and may change the current
structure to strengthen the program and improve its benefits to
the community.
Improving Opportunities for School Choice
The Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000 to
continue a scholarship program to allow low-income students
attending consistently under-performing public schools to
choose to attend private schools within the District. The
Committee believes that this program is improving the academic
prospects of students receiving scholarships and is stimulating
improvement within the public school system.
The Committee is providing funds for scholarships that will
be available to low-income District students in grades
kindergarten through 12 who are attending consistently low
performing public schools. The scholarships are for the
tuition, transportation, and fees at participating private
schools within the District and cannot exceed $7,500 per
elementary, middle school, or high school student. If the funds
provided are not sufficient to serve all the eligible
applicants, scholarships will be awarded through random
selection.
Program Is Succeeding
The Committee is very pleased with the first 2 academic
years of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. In the
program's first 2 years, the Washington Scholarship Fund [WSF],
the grantee administering the program, accepted nearly 6,000
applications for approximately 2,400 available scholarships.
The Committee understands the challenges that WSF has met,
particularly given the short amount of time that the
organization had to design, launch and recruit for this
historic demonstration project in school choice.
In the ``Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program: Second Year Report on Participation,'' the Institute
for Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education
noted that:
--44 percent of all eligible applicants entering grades 1
through 12 came from a public school designated as ``in
need of improvement'' under the No Child Left Behind
Act between 2003 and 2005. (When eligible applicants
entering Kindergarten are added, that percentage rises
to 65 percent).
--The average household income of the new 2005-2006
scholarship recipients was $16,651, far below the
statutory requirement of 185 percent of the poverty
level.
--The number of scholarships awarded in the program's first 2
years is high enough to create a robust ``treatment''
group across all 13 grades (K-12) for the rigorous,
federally mandated evaluation of the program. The
evaluation's ``control'' group is also sufficient
across all grades.
In the ``Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program: First Year Report on Participation,'' the Institute
for Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education
noted that:
--Compared to other scholarship programs across the Nation,
this program has a more diverse group of participating
schools, including 28 percent of schools that are not
religiously affiliated.
In addition to these conclusions from the Department of
Education's reports, the Committee notes that last fall, 1,630
students entered D.C. non-public schools using Opportunity
Scholarships. The second year of the program offered
scholarship recipients a choice of 68 participating schools.
The Committee is pleased that the treatment and control groups
are sufficient for the federally mandated evaluation, including
students in all 13 grades, K-12.
Preventing Families From Earning Out of the Program
Against the backdrop of this very promising start, the
Committee is concerned that too many students will lose their
scholarships because their household incomes are rising
slightly. Once a student has been in the program for a year,
the household income eligibility threshold rises from 185
percent of the poverty level to 200 percent of the poverty
level. The Committee understands that for various reasons,
nearly 650 students will lose their scholarships over the next
3 years if the 200 percent threshold is not raised. As a
result, these students will be forced to leave their current,
non-public schools and return to public schools. These students
will remain in the Federal evaluation's ``treatment'' group
even though they are no longer being ``treated.'' This, along
with very limited high school capacity, will jeopardize the
Federal evaluation, which will be rendered inconclusive if less
than 50 percent of the students in the ``treatment'' group are
using their scholarships. In most cases, families are ``earning
out'' of the program by a few hundred dollars. For instance, a
parent gets a slight raise, a promotion, or a higher-paying
job, or parents that were separated reconcile.
For this reason, the Committee has included language to
allow children already in the program to stay in the program if
their families' incomes are below 300 percent of Federal
poverty level.
Evaluation of D.C. School Choice Incentive Act.--The
Committee directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to
conduct a comprehensive review of the Opportunity Scholarship
Program. Not later than April 1, 2007, the GAO shall report on
the methodologies for conducting the program evaluation and
shall assess and analyze the demographic and other
characteristics of the students participating in and leaving
the program; the selection criteria for schools wishing to
participate and the methods used to select students who receive
an offer to participate in the program; and an analysis of the
administration of the program and use of Federal funds.
In addition, this GAO review shall assess the
administration of testing or other measurements to compare the
academic achievement and rates of retention, drop-out,
graduation, and college admission of the students in the
program with comparable students enrolled in the District of
Columbia public school system. The report should also include
information from parents of scholarship students as well as
parents of the District of Columbia public school students
about how satisfied they are with the quality of their child's
education. This information should be presented by income
level.
The GAO shall also report on the challenges facing the
Washington Scholarship Fund as it administers the program.
These challenges include outreach to low-income parents, the
need for additional academic remediation for children who enter
private school below grade level, and the oversight of the
program participants. The study should also provide information
on the challenges that schools who educate scholarship students
face and the additional costs they bear to accept these
students.
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR FORENSICS AND BIOTERRORISM LABORATORY
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $4,950,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 4,500,000
The Committee recommends $4,500,000 for costs associated
with the construction of a new bioterrorism and forensics
laboratory in the District of Columbia. This is $450,000 less
than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The President did not
request funds for this activity. The District's laboratory
capacity has not kept pace with the innovations in the field
and is therefore unable to meet the demands of the current
workload. Because of this lack of capacity, the District is
forced to seek help from the FBI crime laboratory in Quantico,
Virginia. The FBI has its own workload capacity and therefore
limits the evidence it will process for the District to four
pieces of forensic evidence for violent crimes. This lack of
capacity and the limitations of old technology have led to many
so-called ``cold'' or unsolved crime cases in the District. A
new laboratory will not only allow the District to more
effectively and efficiently process crime cases, but it will be
an essential element in processing evidence associated with
potential bioterrorism attacks.
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR MARRIAGE DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS AND MARRIAGE
PROMOTION
Appropriations, 2006.................................... $2,970,000
Budget estimate, 2007...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 4,000,000
The Committee is providing $4,000,000 for marriage
promotion and to continue Marriage Development accounts.
Children Raised by Married Parents Usually Have Brighter Futures
The Committee notes that the family is the very foundation
and building block of a society. When families thrive,
communities thrive, and society thrives. Marriage is the
essence of family formation and our most important social
institution. It is the place from which healthy children and,
ultimately, a healthy society are born.
The Committee is aware that almost all available research
shows--and social policy experts agree--that children do best
when they grow up in homes with their married, biological
parents. They are generally healthier, happier, and have
brighter futures than children who grow up with only one
parent. Statistics tell a compelling story: children raised by
only 1 parent are three times more likely to repeat a grade in
school; five times more likely to have behavioral problems;
twice as likely to be depressed; three times more likely to use
illicit drugs; twice as likely to become sexually active as
teenagers; and are seven times more likely to live in poverty.
In fact, children born to unmarried mothers are likely to live
in poverty and require support from the welfare system.
Given the enormous benefits that accrue to children who are
raised by their married parents, the Committee believes that it
is a moral and societal imperative that our nation esteem,
support, foster, and encourage the institution of marriage.
The Committee is pleased to announce that the Mayor of the
District of Columbia will take important actions to encourage
marriage in the District of Columbia. These actions include:
(1) eliminating marriage penalties for low-income couples who
decide to wed; (2) increasing the earned income tax credit for
married couples in the District; and (3) assigning priority
status to married couples and their families for low-income and
federally funded housing. The Committee is also providing
$1,000,000 to the District of Columbia Department of Human
Services to support occupational training for married parents
to improve their prospects for full-time employment.
Low-Income Couples Face Significant Marriage Penalties
Through Committee hearings, briefings, and research, the
Committee has learned that governmental policies have often
worked to discourage marriage. In May witnesses testified
before the Committee that government policies have served to
weaken marriage over the past 40 years. Certain programs
created in the 1960's had the unintended consequence of
discouraging marriage by providing financial incentives for
low-income parents to never get married. These policies have
made--and continue to make--it economically irrational for a
poor mother to get married.
Four decades of these incentives have wrought a significant
and tragic result for our children: fully 35 percent of all
babies are born to single mothers. This compares to just 4
percent in 1960. And the picture is nothing short of
devastating for African-American families: 70 percent of all
children are born to single mothers.
The Committee has been informed that the lower the parents'
income, the greater the likelihood that he or she will be
raising children alone. According to the Congressional Research
Service, 55 percent of all families with children whose incomes
are below $30,000 are headed by an unmarried parent. Families
in this income range make up over one-third of all families
with children in the United States.
Although the 1996 Welfare Reform Act attempted to remove
the incentives for parents to remain unmarried, unwed
birthrates have continued to increase. In fact, government
policies often continue to penalize low-income couples with
children who decide to get married.
During a recent hearing before this Committee, Dr. Eugene
Steuerle of the Urban Institute testified about his work with
Adam Carasso on what they call ``the hefty tax on marriage
facing many low-income households with children.'' Dr. Steuerle
pointed out that most households with children whose parents
earn low or moderate incomes (under $40,000) are significantly
penalized for getting married. Essentially, a couple will fall
off the ``benefits cliff'' when they take their wedding vows
because even small increases in income result in thousands of
dollars of lost benefits. Dr. Steuerle's research has led him
to make a very troubling observation. He testified before the
Committee that ``in aggregate, couples today face hundreds of
billions of dollars in increased taxes or reduced benefits if
they marry. Cohabitation or not getting married has become the
tax shelter for the poor.''
At first this statement is a shocking one, but upon further
consideration, it is quite understandable because it makes
little economic sense for low-income couples to get married. If
a low-income mother is faced with losing the ability to feed
and clothe her children when she takes a wedding vow, why would
she choose to do so?
The Committee also heard testimony from a mother of four
who just recently married the father of her children. She
testified that ``a reality that contributed to our delay in
getting married was fear over what would happen to the public
benefits we need to support our family.'' She went on to say
that ``it is the experience of people in my community that if a
woman gets married her income from TANF (Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families) and other benefits will decrease. This is a
disincentive to marriage and I understand why. As a mother of
four, the possibility of losing income I desperately needed to
support my children altered my own judgment about marriage for
so long.''
The decision for this couple to marry was economically
irrational because it means that every month they have to get
by on less than they used to before they got married. They are
being financially penalized for taking a wedding vow. It is not
surprising that in many low-income communities marriage is
disappearing and children are growing up without the love and
nurturing of both parents. For four decades we have essentially
been taxing low-income marriage and subsidizing single
parenthood. It is no wonder, then, that we have less marriage
and more single parents in low-income communities.
The Committee is aware that there are many single mothers
who are heroically and successfully raising children on their
own. They deserve our respect and support. But it is an
indisputable fact that a father and a mother, bound together in
marriage, provide the best environment in which to raise
healthy children. As a society, we should strive to foster what
is the very best for our children.
The Mayor Will Work to Eliminate Marriage Penalties in the District of
Columbia
The Mayor of the District of Columbia has agreed to partner
with this Committee to increase marriage rates in a number of
ways. First, the District will begin using some of its TANF
funds to provide additional cash supplements to couples who
would otherwise have lost benefits by getting married. The
District will determine the potential loss of benefits and will
then provide monthly cash payments to replace those lost
benefits. The District has agreed to provide these benefits for
the first 2 years of the couples' marriage. This will
effectively eliminate the ``marriage penalty'' and will ``hold
couples harmless'' for their decision to wed. The Committee
believes that in the long run eliminating marriage penalties
will actually save money because fewer children will be raised
by single parents in poverty and these children will, in turn,
be less likely to rely on public assistance. But more
importantly, eliminating marriage penalties for low-income
families will encourage marriage and enable more children to
grow up in the very best environment possible--with their
married biological mother and father.
The Committee lauds the Mayor for taking this important
step to eliminate marriage penalties and believes that all
States should take aggressive measures to eliminate marriage
penalties for low-income couples.
The Mayor Will Increase Earned Income Tax Credit for Married Couples in
the District of Columbia
The Committee notes that the Mayor of the District of
Columbia has also agreed to increase the Earned Income Tax
Credit [EITC] for married coupled in the District of Columbia.
The Committee is informed that when a low-income working
woman and a low-income working man decide to marry, they face
reductions in their EITC benefits. This is because benefits are
based on household income, rather than individual income.
Unfortunately, this situation encourages couples to cohabit or
never marry in order to preserve their EITC benefits.
One way to eliminate this penalty is to simply base the
credit on individual income rather than family income. Another
option is to extend the maximum benefit for married couples,
while leaving it unchanged for single parents. The Committee
understands that the Mayor has agreed to increase EITC benefits
by using whichever method is easiest to administer.
The Mayor Will Assign Priority Status to Married Couples for Access to
Low-income and Federally-funded Housing
The Committee is pleased that the Mayor has decided to give
priority to married couples who are seeking low-income housing.
The Committee understands that one obstacle to marriage for
low-income single mothers is the loss of housing benefits if
they decide to marry. When public-housing subsidies are
withdrawn or substantially reduced following the marriage of a
welfare recipient, the essential message this sends to single
mothers is: If you want your welfare benefits to continue,
avoid marrying an employed man.
Given the important stability that affordable housing
provides to families, the Committee is pleased that the Mayor
has decided to give married couples priority access to low-
income housing. The Committee believes that other States should
considering following the Mayor's example.
More Job Training and Employment Opportunities Will Help Stabilize
Marriages
According to the Congressional Research Service, more than
one-third of all unmarried parents in the District of Columbia
have household incomes that are less than $10,000 per year,
making them the city's largest single income grouping of
unmarried parents. Nearly 86 percent of all families with
children having income less than $10,000 per year are headed by
a single parent. These are the parents that require direct
assistance because most do not have full-time, full-year
employment and therefore count on public benefits to sustain
them.
According to District of Columbia officials, the
disproportionately low levels of functional literacy of TANF
recipients creates a serious challenge to moving persons into
higher paying jobs that lead to long-term self-sufficiency and
marital stability. With little formal education and low
functional literacy rates, many single parents simply are not
well-positioned to advance beyond entry level jobs and ill-
prepared to pursue formal education that will lead to higher
paying jobs.
Research shows that most low-income parents want jobs and
are interested in formal education to the extent it quickly
leads to employment. Also, noncustodial male parents are
frequently interested in obtaining employment as a means of
being responsible fathers. However, these men have consistently
been unable to access traditional workforce development
programs because they cannot meet the program requirements of a
high school diploma or 8th grade reading and math proficiency.
The Committee recognizes that many low-income parents are
functionally illiterate and lack occupational skills and it is
therefore providing resources to the District of Columbia
Department of Human Services for occupational skills training
and developmental education programs. These programs will be
available to married men and women. They will include:
(1) Developmental education that teaches basic reading,
writing, math, and/or English language skills in the context of
a specific occupation, helping the participant quickly enter
and succeed in the workforce or other training programs; and
(2) Occupational skills training which leads to employment
and prepares the participant for more advanced training and a
higher skill position.
The Committee believes that these programs are attractive
because they are generally shorter in length and more intensive
than other adult courses, and are often linked to a specific
employer. Given these characteristics, many programs are
employer-sponsored or linked to providers of technical
education. The funds included will support courses including
remedial math and reading which are taught in a manner that
incorporates material specific to the occupation for which the
individual is being trained, and incorporate teaching methods
that are more appealing to adult learners with limited basic
skills such as projects, simulations, and experiential
learning.
In the District, many employers cannot hire many of the
city's low income parents because they do not have necessary
job skills. It is no surprise, then, that the District of
Columbia Chamber of Commerce has specifically called for the
creation of bridge training programs to address employment
needs. This demonstration project will be linked to ongoing
D.C. marriage and fatherhood promotion efforts. Services will
be provided through contracts to community providers to develop
community based bridge programs as part of a partnership with
the Department of Human Services, the State Education Office,
and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Children, Youth and
Families and Elders.
Continuing Marriage Development Accounts
The Committee believes that Federal, State and local
leaders must act as quickly as possible to stop the erosion of
marriage in our Nation. Millions of children are suffering the
consequences of growing up without both of their parents. We
must act aggressively to encourage marriage--not penalize it.
Rather than economically penalizing low-income couples who
decide to marry, the Committee believes we should help these
couples gain stronger financial security. The promise of
financial security can help promote and sustain healthy
marriages, just as financial penalties can discourage and harm
marriages.
As a way to help low-income married couples gain
appreciable assets here in the District of Columbia, the
Committee is providing $1,500,000 to continue to pilot new
federally funded ``Marriage Development Accounts.'' These MDAs
are available to low-income married couples who are citizens or
legal residents of the District and who have very low net
worth. Couples can save money to buy a home, pay for job
training or education for themselves or their children, or
start their own businesses. Couples who open an MDA will have a
high incentive to save because their contributions will be
matched at a ratio of 3:1 by the Federal Government and
partnering private institutions. As a requirement of
participation, couples are receiving training to help them
repair their credit, set a budget and savings schedule, and
manage their money. Couples will also receive bonuses in their
MDA accounts for receiving marriage counseling.
On April 27, 2006, leaders from the District of Columbia
government, the faith community, nonprofit organizations and
more than 350 District residents launched the ``Together is
Better'' campaign to strengthen marriages, with MDAs offered as
an important tool to help low-income married and engaged
couples put their lives on firm financial ground.
The Committee has included funds in this bill to continue
MDAs as a way to help low-income couples get and stay married
so that husbands and wives and their children can have a
brighter future. By itself it cannot cancel out the hefty
marriage penalties that are levied on so many low-income
couples who decide to marry, but it is a start. The Committee
believes that MDAs, the elimination of marriage penalties, an
increase in EITC for married couples, and job training for
enhanced employability will all work in concert to encourage
marriage, which has been discouraged for low-income couples
over the past 40 years.
Promoting Successful Marriages and Encouraging Positive Life Decisions
The Committee is providing $750,000 for the East Capitol
Center for Change [ECCC] and $750,000 for the National Center
for Fathering [NCF] to work with local churches and other
faith-based organizations to provide marriage counseling,
couples mentoring, couples coaching, marriage retreats, ``Dad
training,'' and community outreach. Both ECCC and NCF are
working with CAAB and its participating service providers to
provide account holders with life skills counseling, couples
mentoring, and youth mentoring (which will include relationship
counseling and abstinence counseling). ECCC and NCF are working
with the faith community to provide pre-marital and marital
counseling and relationship mentors and coaches for
participating couples.
Recognizing the importance of grassroots support to ensure
the success of these efforts, the Committee directs ECCC and
NCF to expand their network of service providers by developing
partnership with local churches, faith-based organizations, and
other non-profit organizations. The Committee expects that ECCC
and NCF will provide technical assistance and training to their
partners in order to replicate the successful models which they
are currently using.
The Committee has included bill language requiring CAAB,
ECCC, and NCF to submit detailed expenditure plans within 30
days of enactment of the bill. In addition, the Committee is
directing CAAB to provide detailed program requirements
governing MDAs and pMDAs that comport with the above report
language with 30 days of enactment of the bill.
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR NAVY YARD METRO
The Committee is providing $4,000,000 to improve and
upgrade the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's
Navy Yard Metro station. The President's budget includes
$20,000,000 in funding for this purpose. This investment is
modeled on other transit investments the Federal Government has
made in the District and it will help improve capacity for
expanded Federal workforce needs at the new U.S. Department of
Transportation headquarters and the Southeast Federal Center.
The Committee also recognizes the importance of improving
public access to the tremendous natural amenities along the
Anacostia River, which the expansion of this Metro station will
provide.
FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR A NEW STATE-OF-THE-ART
CENTRAL LIBRARY
The Committee is providing $15,000,000 as a Federal
contribution for a new central library. The Committee
recognizes that the District's adult illiteracy rate is 37
percent and notes that in many major metropolitan areas around
the country, new libraries have revitalized many distressed
neighborhoods. For this reason, the Mayor established a Blue
Ribbon Task Force comprised of local and national experts. The
Blue Ribbon Task Force recommended the creation of a state-of-
the-art library system to add multi-lingual support, add
hundreds of new computers with broadband technology, and add
deep reference materials and childrens' programs. The Mayor
believes, and the Committee agrees, that this new central
library will help create brighter futures for District of
Columbia residents.
The Committee notes that the estimated cost of building the
District's central library and refurbishing satellite libraries
will be approximately $450,000,000. The Committee recognizes
that the lion's share of funding for the library project will
be borne by District residents.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL OPERATING BUDGET
The Committee recommends a total of $9,057,361,000 for the
operating expenses of the District of Columbia as contained in
the fiscal year 2007 budget submitted to the Congress by the
Government of the District of Columbia on June 6, 2005. Of the
total, $5,271,162,000 is from local funds, $2,020,101,000 is
from Federal grant funds, $1,758,214,000 is from other funds,
and $7,885,000 is from private funds. The Committee directs
that any changes to the financial plan as submitted by the
District must follow the reprogramming guidelines.
The following tables detail the revenue and expenses plan
of the District for fiscal year 2007:
FISCAL YEAR 2007 FINANCIAL PLAN
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants and
Local Funds other revenue Gross funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenues
Local Sources:
Property Taxes.............................................. 1,345,111 .............. 1,345,111
Sales Taxes................................................. 815,498 .............. 815,498
Income Taxes................................................ 1,576,071 .............. 1,576,071
Gross Receipts.............................................. 261,186 .............. 261,186
Other Taxes................................................. 314,733 .............. 314,733
Licenses and Permits........................................ 70,845 .............. 70,845
Fines and Forfeitures....................................... 107,336 .............. 107,336
Charges/Services............................................ 53,218 .............. 53,218
Miscellaneous............................................... 550,990 .............. 550,990
Fund Balance Use............................................ 284,287 .............. 284,287
Revenue Proposals/Onetime Revenues.......................... 113,268 .............. 113,268
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Local Revenues.................................. 5,492,543 .............. 5,492,543
===============================================
Federal and Other Sources:
Federal Payments............................................ .............. 36,400 36,400
Federal Grants.............................................. .............. 2,001,522 2,001,522
Private Grants.............................................. .............. 6,850 6,850
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Federal Sources Revenues........................ .............. 2,044,772 2,044,772
===============================================
Other Financing Sources: Lottery Transfer....................... 72,100 .............. 72,100
===============================================
Total General Operating Fund Revenues..................... 5,564,643 2,044,772 7,609,415
Expenditures
Current Operating:
Governmental Direction and Support.......................... 384,759 157,746 542,505
Economic Development and Regulation......................... 409,392 133,742 543,134
Public Safety and Justice................................... 943,295 7,398 950,693
Public Education System..................................... 1,223,971 226,462 1,450,433
Human Support Services...................................... 1,423,138 1,500,033 2,923,171
Public Works................................................ 405,318 19,391 424,709
Financing and Other......................................... 586,296 .............. 586,296
Cash Reserve (Budgeted Contingency)......................... 50,000 .............. 50,000
Lease Purchase Costs........................................ 43,955 .............. 43,955
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operating Expenditures.......................... 5,470,124 2,044,772 7,514,896
===============================================
Paygo Capital............................................... 87,987 .............. 87,987
Transfer to Trust Fund for Post-Employment Benefits......... 4,700 .............. 4,700
-----------------------------------------------
Total General Operating Fund Expenditures................. 5,562,811 2,044,772 7,607,583
===============================================
Operating Margin, Budget Basis.............................. 1,832 .............. 1,832
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill compared with--
Approved Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
Agency/activity fiscal year 2007 Intra- 2007 less Committee Intra- Committee Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 request District Intra- recommendation District recommendation 2006 2007
district approved request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY... 295,710 311,642 ........... 311,642 311,642 ............ 311,642 +15,932 ...........
WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT......... 50,512 143,174 ........... 143,174 143,174 ............ 143,174 +92,662 ...........
STORM WATER................. 6,673 7,000 ........... 7,000 7,000 ............ 7,000 +327 ...........
D.C. LOTTERY AND CHARITABLE 251,000 256,000 ........... 256,000 256,000 ............ 256,000 +5,000 ...........
GAMES CONTROL BOARD........
SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT 339,630 195,314 ........... 195,314 195,314 ............ 195,314 -144,316 ...........
COMMISSION.................
D.C. RETIREMENT BOARD....... 30,078 34,423 ........... 34,423 34,423 ............ 34,423 +4,345 ...........
CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES..... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
WASHINGTON CONVENTION CENTER 78,900 80,238 ........... 80,238 80,238 ............ 80,238 +1,338 ...........
AUTHORITY..................
NATIONAL CAPITAL 52,731 51,592 ........... 51,592 51,592 ............ 51,592 -1,139 ...........
REVITALIZATION CORPORATION.
UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT 102,200 110,259 10,163 100,095 110,259 (10,163) 100,095 +8,058 ...........
OF COLUMBIA................
D.C. OFFICE OF PERSONAL 1,100 1,265 ........... 1,265 1,265 ............ 1,265 +165 ...........
AGENCY TRUST FUND..........
D.C. PUBLIC LIBRARY TRUST 17 17 ........... 17 17 ............ 17 ........... ...........
FUNDS......................
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 180,000 180,000 ........... 180,000 180,000 ............ 180,000 ........... ...........
FUND.......................
ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT 8,200 5,000 ........... 5,000 5,000 ............ 5,000 -3,200 ...........
CORPORATION................
HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST ........... 120,418 ........... 120,418 120,418 ............ 120,418 +120,418 ...........
FUND.......................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Enterprise and 1,396,751 1,496,341 10,163 1,486,178 1,496,341 (10,163) 1,486,178 +99,591 ...........
Other Funds..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINANCING AND OTHER
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill compared with--
Approved Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
Agency/activity fiscal year 2007 Intra- 2007 less Committee Intra- Committee Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 request District Intra- recommendation District recommendation 2006 2007
district approved request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESERVE..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
REPAYMENT OF LOANS AND 370,778 405,114 ........... 405,114 405,114 ............ 405,114 +34,336 ...........
INTEREST...................
REPAYMENT OF GENERAL FUND ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
DEFICIT....................
SHORT-TERM BORROWINGS....... 5,500 8,000 ........... 8,000 8,000 ............ 8,000 +2,500 ...........
INAUGURAL EXPENSES.......... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
CERTIFICATES OF 15,000 33,225 2,000 31,225 33,225 (2,000) 31,225 +18,225 ...........
PARTICIPATION..............
SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS... 20,655 15,655 ........... 15,655 15,655 ............ 15,655 -5,000 ...........
WILSON BUILDING............. 3,740 4,211 ........... 4,211 4,211 ............ 4,211 +471 ...........
WORKFORCE INVESTMENTS....... 61,110 38,500 ........... 38,500 38,500 ............ 38,500 -22,610 ...........
TOBACCO TRUST FUND.......... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
NON-DEPARTMENTAL............ 37,286 45,942 ........... 45,942 45,942 ............ 45,942 +8,656 ...........
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
SECURITY FUND..............
ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES....... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
(TIF) PROGRAM..............
CASH RESERVE................ 50,000 50,000 ........... 50,000 50,000 ............ 50,000 ........... ...........
GRANT DISALLOWANCE.......... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ...........
EQUIPMENT LEASE OPERATING... 35,441 48,635 4,680 43,955 48,635 (4,680) 43,955 +13,194 ...........
EMERGENCY AND CONTINGENCY ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
RESERVE FUNDS..............
PAY-GO CONTINGENCY.......... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
PAY-GO CAPITAL.............. 262,323 87,987 ........... 87,987 87,987 ............ 87,987 -174,336 ...........
DEBT SERVICE--ISSUANCE COSTS 40,000 30,000 ........... 30,000 30,000 ............ 30,000 -10,000 ...........
SCHOOLS MODERNIZATION FUND.. 12,208 1,650 ........... 1,650 1,650 ............ 1,650 -10,558 ...........
DISTRICT RETIREE HEALTH 138,000 4,700 ........... 4,700 4,700 ............ 4,700 -133,300 ...........
CONTRIBUTION...............
BASEBALL.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
REPAYMENT OF REVENUE BONDS.. ........... 6,000 ........... 6,000 6,000 ............ 6,000 +6,000 ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Financing and 1,052,040 779,618 6,680 772,938 779,618 (6,680) 772,938 -272,422 ...........
Other................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC WORKS
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill compared with--
Approved Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
Agency/activity fiscal year 2007 Intra- 2007 less Committee Intra- Committee Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 request District Intra- recommendation District recommendation 2006 2007
district approved request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.. 115,530 136,012 26,896 109,115 136,012 (26,896) 109,115 +20,481 ...........
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 39,995 42,300 235 42,066 42,300 (235) 42,066 +2,305 ...........
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 46,530 42,931 ........... 42,931 42,931 ............ 42,931 -3,599 ...........
DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF ........... 25,771 457 25,314 25,771 (457) 25,314 +25,771 ...........
ENVIRONMENT................
D.C. TAXI CAB COMMISSION.... 1,362 1,516 ........... 1,516 1,516 ............ 1,516 +154 ...........
WASHINGTON METRO AREA 110 110 ........... 110 110 ............ 110 ........... ...........
TRANSIT COMMISSION.........
WASHINGTON METRO AREA 187,632 198,487 ........... 198,487 198,487 ............ 198,487 +10,855 ...........
TRANSIT AUTHORITY..........
SCHOOL TRANSIT SUBSIDY...... 5,169 5,169 ........... 5,169 5,169 ............ 5,169 ........... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Works... 396,329 452,296 27,588 424,708 452,296 (27,588) 424,708 +55,968 ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUMAN SUPPORT SERVICES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill compared with--
Approved Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
Agency/activity fiscal year 2007 Intra- 2007 less Committee Intra- Committee Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 request District Intra- recommendation District recommendation 2006 2007
district approved request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 414,015 452,322 8,755 443,567 452,322 (8,755) 443,567 +38,306 ...........
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES 238,495 257,406 49,466 207,940 257,406 (49,466) 207,940 +18,911 ...........
AGENCY.....................
DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH. 229,545 220,863 39,045 181,818 220,863 (39,045) 181,818 -8,682 ...........
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH........ 1,731,976 1,884,580 4,822 1,879,758 1,884,580 (4,822) 1,879,758 +152,604 ...........
DEPT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 51,340 52,302 7,584 44,718 52,302 (7,584) 44,718 +962 ...........
OFFICE ON AGING............. 21,415 23,470 250 23,220 23,470 (250) 23,220 +2,054 ...........
PBC TRANSITION.............. ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 7,124 5,800 ........... 5,800 5,800 ............ 5,800 -1,324 ...........
FUND.......................
DISABILITY COMPENSATION FUND 30,281 30,280 ........... 30,280 30,280 ............ 30,280 -1 ...........
OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS...... 5,032 2,725 ........... 2,725 2,725 ............ 2,725 -2,307 ...........
OFFICE ON LATINO AFFAIRS.... 4,485 4,247 ........... 4,247 4,247 ............ 4,247 -238 ...........
D.C. ENERGY OFFICE.......... 21,147 27,548 6,000 21,548 27,548 (6,000) 21,548 +6,401 ...........
CHILDREN AND YOUTH 8,068 8,507 ........... 8,507 8,507 ............ 8,507 +439 ...........
INVESTMENT FUND............
BROWNFIELD REMEDIATION...... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER 540 813 ........... 813 813 ............ 813 +274 ...........
AFFAIRS....................
OFFICE OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.. 251 302 ........... 302 302 ............ 302 +51 ...........
MEDICAID RESERVE............ ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
INCENTIVES FOR ADOPTION OF ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
CHILDREN...................
DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH 61,327 68,584 655 67,929 68,584 (655) 67,929 +7,257 ...........
REHABILITATION SERVICES....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Human Support 2,825,040 3,039,748 116,576 2,923,171 3,039,748 (116,576) 2,923,171 +214,708 ...........
Services.............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill compared with--
Approved Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
Agency/activity fiscal year 2007 Intra- 2007 less Committee Intra- Committee Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 request District Intra- recommendation District recommendation 2006 2007
district approved request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS......... 1,046,064 1,031,339 52,239 979,100 1,031,339 (52,239) 979,100 -14,725 ...........
TEACHERS' RETIREMENT FUND... 15,500 14,600 ........... 14,600 14,600 ............ 14,600 -900 ...........
STATE EDUCATION OFFICE...... 90,987 54,023 ........... 54,023 54,023 ............ 54,023 -36,964 ...........
D.C. PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS. 239,284 266,066 ........... 266,066 266,066 ............ 266,066 +26,781 ...........
UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
OF COLUMBIA................
UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT 57,873 59,546 ........... 59,546 59,546 ............ 59,546 +1,673 ...........
OF COLUMBIA SUBSIDY........
D.C. PUBLIC LIBRARY......... 34,473 42,297 299 41,998 42,297 (299) 41,998 +7,824 ...........
COMMISSION ON ARTS AND ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
HUMANITIES.................
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 21,000 ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. -21,000 ...........
EDUCATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARTER 4,200 ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. -4,200 ...........
SCHOOLS INVESTMENT FUND....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public 1,509,381 1,467,871 52,538 1,415,333 1,467,871 (52,538) 1,415,333 -41,510 ...........
Education System.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill compared with--
Approved Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
Agency/activity fiscal year 2007 Intra- 2007 less Committee Intra- Committee Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 request District Intra- recommendation District recommendation 2006 2007
district approved request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
METROPOLITAN POLICE 377,488 437,129 2,566 434,562 437,129 (2,566) 434,562 +59,641 ...........
DEPARTMENT.................
FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES 156,268 169,790 559 169,231 169,790 (559) 169,231 +13,522 ...........
DEPARTMENT.................
POLICE OFFICERS' AND FIRE 117,500 140,100 ........... 140,100 140,100 ............ 140,100 +22,600 ...........
FIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS... 132,686 137,590 442 137,148 137,590 (442) 137,148 +4,905 ...........
NATIONAL GUARD.............. 3,428 4,493 ........... 4,493 4,493 ............ 4,493 +1,065 ...........
D.C. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 5,495 6,695 ........... 6,695 6,695 ............ 6,695 +1,201 ...........
AGENCY.....................
COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL 218 233 ........... 233 233 ............ 233 +15 ...........
DISABILITIES AND TENURE....
JUDICIAL NOMINATION 126 131 ........... 131 131 ............ 131 +5 ...........
COMMISSION.................
OFFICE OF POLICE COMPLAINTS. 2,095 2,312 ........... 2,312 2,312 ............ 2,312 +217 ...........
D.C. SENTENCING COMMISSION.. 662 700 ........... 700 700 ............ 700 +38 ...........
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL 9,265 8,989 ........... 8,989 8,989 ............ 8,989 -276 ...........
EXAMINER...................
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE 7,057 7,335 1,164 6,171 7,335 (1,164) 6,171 +278 ...........
HEARINGS...................
CORRECTIONS INFORMATION 155 118 ........... 118 118 ............ 118 -37 ...........
COUNCIL....................
CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1,563 289 ........... 289 289 ............ 289 -1,274 ...........
COORDINATING COUNCIL.......
FORENSICS LABORATORY 800 1,238 ........... 1,238 1,238 ............ 1,238 +438 ...........
TECHNICIAN TRAINING PROGRAM
OFFICE OF UNIFIED 31,662 36,982 ........... 36,982 36,982 ............ 36,982 +5,320 ...........
COMMUNICATIONS.............
EMERGENCY AND DISASTER ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
RESPONSE...................
HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS.... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Public Safety 846,466 954,124 4,731 949,393 954,124 (4,731) 949,393 +107,657
and Justice..........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill compared with--
Approved Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
Agency/activity fiscal year 2007 Intra- 2007 less Committee Intra- Committee Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 request District Intra- recommendation District recommendation 2006 2007
district approved request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY MAYOR 37,980 85,661 ........... 85,661 85,661 ............ 85,661 +47,681 ...........
OF PLANNING................
OFFICE OF PLANNING.......... 6,673 7,168 80 7,088 7,168 (80) 7,088 +494 ...........
OFFICE OF LOCAL BUSINESS 1,438 2,662 ........... 2,662 2,662 ............ 2,662 +1,225 ...........
DEVELOPMENT................
OFFICE OF MOTION PICTURES 579 594 ........... 594 594 ............ 594 +15 ...........
AND TELEVISION.............
OFFICE OF ZONING............ 2,902 2,998 ........... 2,998 2,998 ............ 2,998 +96 ...........
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 210,710 108,712 ........... 108,712 108,712 ............ 108,712 -101,998 ...........
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT......
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT 93,048 99,016 577 98,439 99,016 (577) 98,439 +5,968 ...........
SERVICES...................
BOARD OF APPEALS AND REVIEW. ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
BOARD OF REAL PROPERTY 431 563 ........... 563 563 ............ 563 +132 ...........
ASSES. AND APPEALS.........
DEPT CONSUMER AND REGULATORY 40,251 38,693 ........... 38,693 38,693 ............ 38,693 -1,558 ...........
AFFAIRS....................
COMMISSION ON ARTS AND 9,918 10,717 20 10,697 10,717 (20) 10,697 +799 ...........
HUMANITIES.................
ALCOHOL BEVERAGE REGULATION 4,702 4,533 ........... 4,533 4,533 ............ 4,533 -168 ...........
ADMINISTRATION.............
DEPT. OF BANKING AND ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.....
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION... 7,976 8,001 ........... 8,001 8,001 ............ 8,001 +25 ...........
OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE'S 4,306 4,596 ........... 4,596 4,596 ............ 4,596 +290 ...........
COUNSEL....................
DEPT. OF INSURANCE, 14,158 16,184 ........... 16,184 16,184 ............ 16,184 +2,025 ...........
SECURITIES AND BANKING.....
OFFICE OF CABLE TELEVISION 5,054 5,566 ........... 5,566 5,566 ............ 5,566 +512 ...........
AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS.....
HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBSIDY... 4,003 22,730 ........... 22,730 22,730 ............ 22,730 +18,727 ...........
ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT CORP. 8,200 5,000 ........... 5,000 5,000 ............ 5,000 -3,200 ...........
SUBSIDY....................
HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST ........... 120,418 ........... 120,418 120,418 ............ 120,418 +120,418 ...........
FUND SUBSIDY...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Economic 452,328 543,812 677 543,135 543,812 (677) 543,135 +91,484 ...........
Development and
Regulation...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOVERNMENTAL DIRECTION AND SUPPORT
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill compared with--
Approved Fiscal year Fiscal year -------------------------
Agency/activity fiscal year 2007 Intra- 2007 less Committee Intra- Committee Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 request District Intra- recommendation District recommendation 2006 2007
district approved request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF 14,038 14,667 ........... 14,667 14,667 ............ 14,667 +629 ...........
COLUMBIA...................
OFFICE OF THE D.C. AUDITOR.. 2,008 2,178 ........... 2,178 2,178 ............ 2,178 +170 ...........
ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD 976 994 ........... 994 994 ............ 994 +18 ...........
COMMISSIONS................
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR......... 13,454 14,615 114 14,501 14,615 (114) 14,501 +1,162 ...........
OFFICE OF SECRETARY......... 4,241 4,294 ........... 4,294 4,294 ............ 4,294 +53 ...........
CUSTOMER SERVICE OPERATIONS. 1,048 1,058 695 363 1,058 (695) 363 +9 ...........
OFFICE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR 173,880 152,221 672 151,550 152,221 (672) 151,550 -21,659 ...........
OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT... 2,365 2,067 500 1,567 2,067 (500) 1,567 -298 ...........
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL......... 13,544 14,622 3,014 11,608 14,622 (3,014) 11,608 +1,077 ...........
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT. 2,000 2,073 ........... 2,073 2,073 ............ 2,073 +73 ...........
OFFICE OF FINANCE AND 200,888 242,654 231,567 11,087 242,654 (231,567) 11,087 +41,765 ...........
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT........
OFFICE OF CONTRACTING AND 14,642 14,004 1,783 12,221 14,004 (1,783) 12,221 -638 ...........
PROCUREMENT................
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF 43,474 47,860 9,845 38,015 47,860 (9,845) 38,015 +4,386 ...........
TECHNOLOGY OFFICER.........
OFFICE OF PROPERTY 69,346 84,113 59,727 24,386 84,113 (59,727) 24,386 +14,768 ...........
MANAGEMENT.................
CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD...... 806 849 ........... 849 849 ............ 849 +44 ...........
BOARD OF ELECTION AND ETHICS 5,042 5,210 ........... 5,210 5,210 ............ 5,210 +167 ...........
OFFICE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE.. 1,374 1,502 ........... 1,502 1,502 ............ 1,502 +127 ...........
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 801 881 ........... 881 881 ............ 881 +80 ...........
BOARD......................
OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE APPEALS.. 1,589 1,677 ........... 1,677 1,677 ............ 1,677 +88 ...........
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON 440 421 ........... 421 421 ............ 421 -19 ...........
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.....
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 66,275 86,787 8,924 77,863 86,787 (8,924) 77,863 +20,512 ...........
GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA...................
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR 12,942 13,727 ........... 13,727 13,727 ............ 13,727 +785 ...........
GENERAL....................
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF 124,242 154,822 3,951 150,871 154,822 (3,951) 150,871 +30,580 ...........
FINANCIAL OFFICER..........
EMERGENCY PURCHASE CARDS.... ........... ........... ........... ........... .............. ............ .............. ........... ...........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Governmental 769,418 863,297 320,792 542,505 863,297 (320,792) 542,505 +93,878 ...........
Direction and Support
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee has modified section 104 and section 114 to
allow the District to use locally generated funds for lobbying
purposes. The Committee has included language to maintain a
complete prohibition on the use of Federal funds for this
purpose.
The Committee has modified section 115 to allow the
District to use locally generated revenues to support programs
that provide individuals with sterile needles and syringes.
This is consistent with a provision approved by the Senate and
included in the Senate bill since fiscal year 2003. The
Committee has included language that maintains a complete
prohibition on the use of Federal funds for this purpose.
The Committee has included language in section 127 designed
to preserve the status quo with respect to the OCFO's current
procurement process. The OCFO currently maintains independent
procurement authority from the District of Columbia's
Procurement Practices Act and from the Mayor's Procurement
Office.
The Committee has included language in section 130 to
clarify that Federal appropriations provided for the credit
enhancement fund and direct loan fund for public charter
schools do not require District of Columbia Council approval
for the granting of loans pursuant to congressional intent. The
funding and purpose for which the direct loan and credit
enhancement funds are to be used was established pursuant to
prior year Federal Appropriations Acts (Acts). These acts gave
the Mayor of the District of Columbia the authority through the
Office of Public Charter School Financing and Support to
administer all aspects of the direct loan and credit
enhancement funds.
The Committee has included language in section 131 to allow
children to continue using their private school scholarships,
despite small changes in family income. By increasing the
income threshold from 200 percent of Federal poverty level to
300 percent of Federal poverty level, students already using
scholarships will be able to remain in the program, despite
minor changes to their families' income. The retention of these
children will be important to ensure that the program
evaluation will not be compromised.
The Committee has included bill language in section 133
designed to restore, during a noncontrol year, the authority
exercised by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer during a
control year with respect to determining the resources
necessary to effectively perform its duties. This authority was
granted to the OCFO in the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, 1997 during the District's Control Board period (see
Public Law 104-194; 110 Stat. 2375). The authority is also the
same authority currently held by the D.C. Inspector General.
Specifically, the language will require congressional oversight
prior to any reductions in the OCFO's annual budget. The
language would restore for all years, the requirement that the
Mayor and Council may recommend reductions, but all reductions
must be approved by Congress. This language also clarifies that
the Congress must enact an express exemption through an
amendment to the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to grant
independence to any agency or entity within the District
government from OCFO oversight. This change would forestall any
future attempt by an agency to seek to remove itself from OCFO
oversight through statutory interpretation.
The Committee has included language in section 134 to
acknowledge that the D.C. CFO compensation is inconsistent with
compensation packages received by other District Officials.
Currently, the D.C. CFO is compensated at a rate that is
roughly 36 percent lower than the highest paid executive within
the District. The D.C. CFO is compensated at a rate lower than
the heads of DCPS, UDC and the Sports Commission, all of whom
have compensation packages approved by the District's Mayor and
Council. The language in the bill amends the District of
Columbia Home Rule Act to allow the CFO's compensation to be
1.50 times the current rate.
Committee is including bill language in section 135 to
extend the OCFO's service 1 year beyond the election of a Mayor
in order to maintain stable fiscal oversight during the
transition to new elected leadership. Currently the OCFO's term
expires on June 30, 2007 which does not provide the 1-year
overlap which Congress originally intended.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
Items providing funding for fiscal year 2007 which lack
authorization are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal payment for emergency planning and security costs $8,533,000
in the District of Columbia...............................
Federal payment for the Water and Sewer Authority.......... 7,000,000
Federal payment for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative.... 5,000,000
Federal payment for transportation......................... 1,000,000
Federal payment for foster care improvements............... 2,000,000
Federal payment for the Office of the Chief Financial 5,000,000
Officer...................................................
Federal payment for bioterrorism and forensics lab......... 4,500,000
Federal payment for marriage development................... 4,000,000
Federal payment for a new central library.................. 15,000,000
Federal payment for Navy Yard Metro improvements........... 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 13, 2006,
the Committee ordered reported, en bloc: H.R. 5672, making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice,
Science, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with an amendment
in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title;
and S. 3660, an original bill 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, 2007, and for
other purposes; with each bill subject to further amendment and
each subject to the budget allocation, by a recorded vote of
27-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter deg.
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the Committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by this bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY,
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2006, PUBLIC LAW 109-115
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of
Columbia and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, namely:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Federal Funds
* * * * * * *
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT
For a Federal payment for a school improvement program in
the District of Columbia, $40,000,000, to be allocated as
follows: for the District of Columbia Public Schools,
$13,000,000 to improve public school education in the District
of Columbia; for the State Education Office, [$13,000,000 to
expand quality public charter schools in the District of
Columbia, to remain available until September 30, 2007;]
$13,000,000 to expand quality public charter schools in the
District of Columbia, of which $7,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2007, and $4,000,000, which shall be for
the direct loan fund, and $2,000,000, which shall be for credit
enhancement, shall remain available until expended; for the
Secretary of the Department of Education, $14,000,000 to
provide opportunity scholarships for students in the District
of Columbia in accordance with division C, title III of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-
199; 118 Stat. 126), of which up to $1,000,000 may be used to
administer and fund assessments.
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of budget totals for 2007:
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia:
Discretionary........................................... 597 597 NA \1\ 578
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2007.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 511
2008.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 55
2009.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 19
2010.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 12
2011 and future years................................... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Financial assistance to State and local governments for NA 381 NA 356
2007.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2007
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+
or -)
Item 2006 Budget estimate House allowance Committee --------------------------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2006
appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I
FEDERAL FUNDS
Federal payment for Resident 32,868 35,100 35,100 33,200 +332 -1,900 -1,900
Tuition Support.................
Federal payment for Emergency 13,365 8,533 8,533 8,533 -4,832 ............... ...............
Planning and Security Costs in
the District of Columbia........
Federal payment to the District 216,723 196,629 219,629 206,629 -10,094 +10,000 -13,000
of Columbia Courts..............
Defender Services in District of 43,560 43,475 43,475 43,475 -85 ............... ...............
Columbia Courts.................
Federal payment to the Court 169,839 181,653 181,653 183,653 +13,814 +2,000 +2,000
Services and Offender
Supervision Agency for the
District of Columbia............
Federal payment to the Public 29,535 32,710 32,710 32,710 +3,175 ............... ...............
Defender Service for the
District of Columbia............
Federal payment to the District 6,930 7,000 7,000 7,000 +70 ............... ...............
of Columbia Water and Sewer
Authority.......................
Federal payment for the Anacostia 2,970 ............... ............... 5,000 +2,030 +5,000 +5,000
Waterfront Initiative...........
Federal payment to the Criminal 1,287 1,300 1,300 1,300 +13 ............... ...............
Justice Coordinating Council....
Federal payment for 990 ............... ............... 1,000 +10 +1,000 +1,000
Transportation Assistance.......
Federal payment for Foster Care 1,980 ............... ............... 2,000 +20 +2,000 +2,000
Improvements....................
Federal payment to the Office of 28,908 ............... 5,000 5,000 -23,908 +5,000 ...............
the Chief Financial Officer of
the District of Columbia........
Federal payment for School 39,600 40,800 40,800 40,000 +400 -800 -800
Improvement.....................
Federal payment for Bioterrorism 4,950 ............... ............... 4,500 -450 +4,500 +4,500
and Forensics Labs..............
Federal payment for the National 495 ............... ............... ............... -495 ............... ...............
Guard Youth Challenge in the
District of Columbia............
Federal payment for Marriage 2,970 ............... ............... 4,000 +1,030 +4,000 +4,000
Development Accounts............
Federal payment for Navy Yard ............... 20,000 ............... 4,000 +4,000 -16,000 +4,000
Metro Station...................
Federal payment for Central ............... 30,000 ............... 15,000 +15,000 -15,000 +15,000
Library/branch locations........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal funds to the 596,970 597,200 575,200 597,000 +30 -200 +21,800
District of Columbia......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
