22–606 PDF 

Calendar No. 170 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 109–106 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006 

JULY 21, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BROWNBACK, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1446] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1446) 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, 2006, 

and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends 

that the bill do pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2006 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $593,000,000 

Amount of 2005 appropriations ............................... 555,521,000 

Amount of 2006 budget estimate ............................ 573,000,000 

Amount of House allowance .................................... 603,397,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2005 appropriations .......................................... ∂37,479,000 

2006 budget estimate ........................................ ∂19,603,000 

House allowance ................................................ ¥10,397,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Summary of Bill ....................................................................................................... 3 

General Statement ................................................................................................... 5 

Federal Funds .......................................................................................................... 8 

General Provisions ................................................................................................... 41 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 43 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 43 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 44 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 48 
(3) 

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. 3058. 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, 

2006 (H.R. 3058), 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 Fed- eral funds totaling $573,397,000 in budget authority for the District of Columbia appropriation. The Committee recommendation is 

$593,000,000 and is appropriated as follows: (1) $33,200,000 for 

D.C. resident tuition support; (2) $218,912,000 for the District of 

Columbia Courts; (3) $45,000,000 for Defender Services in the District of Columbia Courts; (4) $201,828,000 for the Court Services 

and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia; (5) 

$12,000,000 for security costs related to the presence of the Federal 

Government in the District of Columbia; (6) $1,000,000 for transportation assistance; (7) $5,000,000 for the combined sewer overflow; (8) $16,500,000 for security, economic development, education 

and health projects; (9) $3,000,000 for support of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative; (10) $40,000,000 for school improvement; (11) 

$2,000,000 for foster care improvements; (12) $5,200,000 for a new 

bioterrorism and forensics laboratory; (13) $500,000 for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program; (14) $3,000,000 for Marriage Development Accounts and marriage strengthening; (15) 

$2,000,000 for a Latino youth initiative; and (16) $3,000,000 for 

prisoner reentrant housing. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

The Committee recommends a total of $8,700,158,000 in Distrct 

of Columbia operating funds for fiscal year 2006. This is the same 

level of funding requested by the District of Columbia. 

TOTAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE

Based on recommendations in the bill, a total of $10,877,356,000 

will be available to the District government during fiscal year 2006. 
4 

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. 
(5) 

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) enhancing educational and 

health opportunities for Latino youth; and (3) reducing prisoner recidivism. 

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. 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 is providing 

funds to establish ‘‘Marriage Development Accounts’’ [MDAs] in the 

District of Columbia. MDAs will be available to married couples 

who are citizens or legal residents of the District of Columbia 

whose Federal adjusted gross income does not exceed $50,000 and 

whose net worth is less than $10,000. 

Participating couples 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 will receive training that helps them repair their credit, set a budget and savings schedule, and manage 

their money. 

The Committee is also providing funds for pre-Marriage Development Accounts [pMDAs], which will be available to engaged couples, each of whom is 18 or older and whose combined adjusted 

gross income is less than $50,000 and whose total net worth is less 

than $10,000. These accounts will also be available to individuals 

aged 16–22 who are not married, do not have children, and whose 

family’s adjusted gross income is less than $25,000 (single head of 

household) or $50,000 (married couple). pMDAs will give young 

people and couples who are about to be married the financial tools 

and life skills training to make positive choices and well-informed 

plans for the future. pMDAs will help engaged couples build a 

strong financial and emotional foundation to help foster successful 

and long-term marriages. pMDAs will also help low-income youths 

gain a longer-term perspective and provide incentives and training 

to make economically and emotionally sound life decisions. 

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. 
6 

Enhancing Educational and Health Opportunities for Latino Children 

The Committee is concerned about the problems facing Latino 

youth in the District of Columbia. Latino youth make up more than 

25 percent of the under-18 population in the District of Columbia, 

compared to 10 percent nationally. Many of these young people do 

not have adequate access to key services including health insurance, health care and appropriate education and job training. The 

Latino dropout rate in the District is estimated to be in the range 

of 50 percent. In addition, Latino families earned 54 percent less 

than the average District resident. This is significant because income level is a key factor in educational achievement. Educational 

disparities are especially acute with English Language Learners 

who constitute almost half of all Latino students nationally and a 

majority of Latino students in the District. 

The Committee is providing funding for a Latino Youth Initiative 

to help address some of these challenges. These resources will support the efforts of community-based organizations in providing direct and supportive services. The Committee has also provided 

funds for a D.C. Latino Education Director. The Director will have 

responsibility to coordinate with all relevant parties to ensure that 

Latino children have appropriate literacy curriculum and teaching. 

These partners include the District Government, DCPS, Charter 

Schools, Non-Public Schools, and community-based organizations 

involved in serving Latino students. 

The Committee is also providing resources for a program to help 

some of the District’s most troubled Latino youth: high school dropouts, former gang members, teen parents, and adjudicated youths. 

Resources provided will help youths obtain their GEDs and gain 

job skills in the construction industry. These youngsters will also 

be helping the community by building housing for homeless and 

low-income D.C. residents. 

Reducing Prisoner Recidivism 

The Committee understands 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 believes strongly 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 for incentives to encourage developers and non-profit organizations to set aside units for ex-offenders when the developer is rehabilitating or constructing new housing. 

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. Therefore, a portion of the funds 

provided by the Committee is for rental reimbursements for men-
7 

tors who agree to live in the same housing development as the exoffenders. 

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 since February 2001. The Committee notes that 

Wall Street bond rating agencies have upgraded the city’s rating to 

A. This is particularly noteworthy, given that many other cities are 

now experiencing downgrading of their bond ratings. 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. 

Despite the city’s improved fiscal discipline, the Committee recognizes that the District is facing a fundamental fiscal imbalance 

between its revenues and its expenditures. This imbalance is estimated to be between $470,000,000 to $1,100,000,000 annually and, 

according to the Government Accountability Office [GAO], some 

reasons for this imbalance are the high cost of providing services 

in the city, as well as the city’s inability to tax significant amounts 

of real estate which is Federal property. GAO notes that the city 

also faces financial management challenges, poor training and inadequate internal control systems that exacerbate the structural 

imbalance. According to GAO, the imbalance is ‘‘largely beyond 

District officials’ direct control.’’ As the city uses its limited resources to provide basic services for its residents, it continues to 

defer investments in its infrastructure: roads, bridges, school buildings, etc. 
(8) 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FEDERAL FUNDS

A total of $593,000,000 in Federal funds are estimated to be 

available to the District government, the District of Columbia 

Courts, the District of Columbia Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, and other D.C. entities. A total of $2,117,972,000 

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 

2006: 

FEDERAL FUNDS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 estimate 

Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support ................................................................................................ 33,200 

Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs ....................................................................... 12,000 

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts ...................................................................................... 218,912 

Federal Payment for Defender Services ........................................................................................................... 45,000 

Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency .................................................... 201,388 

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority ..................................................... 5,000

Federal Payment for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative ................................................................................ 3,000 

Federal Payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council ..................................................................... 1,300 

Federal Payment for Transportation Assistance .............................................................................................. 1,000 

Federal Payment for Foster Care and Adoption Improvements ....................................................................... 2,000 

Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer .............................................................................................. 16,500 

Federal Payment for National Guard Youth ..................................................................................................... 500 

Federal Payment for a Forensics Lab .............................................................................................................. 5,200 

Federal Payment for School Improvement ....................................................................................................... 40,000 

Federal Payment for Marriage Development and Improvement ...................................................................... 3,000 

Federal Payment for a Latino Youth Initiative ................................................................................................ 2,000 

Federal Payment for Prisoner Reentrant Housing ........................................................................................... 3,000 

Total, Federal funds in bill ................................................................................................................ 593,000 

Federal Grants .................................................................................................................................................. 2,117,972 

Total, Federal Funds ........................................................................................................................... 2,118,565 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENT TUITION

SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $25,395,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 33,200,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 33,200,000 

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 

$7,805,000 over the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and the same as 
9 

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 post-secondary 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 is unique to the District in providing 

a similar opportunity to the state-level university system in all 

states. The Committee notes this year’s budget request of 

$33,200,000 represents over a 30 percent increase over fiscal year 

2005 funding, which itself represented a 50 percent boost over the 

fiscal year 2004 level. The Committee understands that the District 

has used reserve funds to fund the program in fiscal year 2005 and 

appears to have reduced the extensive carryover fund balance that 

raised concerns in previous budgets. 

The Committee is 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 ad-
10 

ditional funds to augment the Federal investment to meet program 

needs. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $189,274,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 221,693,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 221,693,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 218,912,000 

The Committee recommends $218,912,000 for the D.C. Courts. 

This is $29,638,000 more than the fiscal year 2005 enacted level 

and $2,781,000 below 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 $138,183,000 for the Courts’ oper- ations, an increase of $3,584,000 over the fiscal year 2005 enacted 

level and the same as the President’s request. 

Court Capital Expenditures 

The Committee recommends $80,729,000 for capital improve- ments, a total of $2,781,000 below the President’s budget request 

and $24,528,000 above the fiscal year 2005 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. 
11 

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) under the Defender 

Services Spending Plan, include a breakdown of expenditures for 

the Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect Program and the program 

of representation of indigents in criminal cases under the Criminal 

Justice Act; (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 underbudgeted. 

Financial Plan.—The Executive Officer of the District of Columbia Courts shall provide a financial plan of the fiscal year 2006 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, 2006. 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, 2005 ............................................................................. $38,192,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 45,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 45,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 45,000,000 

The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for attorney programs 

for indigent defendants, child abuse and guardianship cases administered by the D.C. Courts, the same as the President’s request and 

$6,808,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. This funding 

increase 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, 2005 ............................................................................. $178,560,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 203,388,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 203,388,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 201,388,000 

The Committee recommends $201,388,000 for the Court Services 

and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA]. This recommendation 
12 

is $2,000,000 below the President’s budget request and $22,828,000 

more than the fiscal year 2005 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 ‘‘statelevel’’ 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 decision-making 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 decision-making process. The 

Committee recommendation also includes $42,195,000 for the D.C. 

Pretrial Services Agency and a transfer of $29,833,000 for the D.C. 

Public Defender Service. 
13 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR SECURITY

COSTS RELATED TO THE PRESENCE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $14,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 15,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 15,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,000,000 

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 over-time costs 

for personnel and diverting police from neighborhood patrols. The 

President has supported reimbursing the District for these costs. 

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for this purpose which is 

$3,000,000 below the President’s request and the fiscal year 2005 

level. 

The Committee understands that since the beginning of this 

year, the District has been expending its fiscal year 2005 security 

resources at a rate of approximately $1,000,000 per month. Therefore, the Committee is providing the level of funding which assumes that the District will continue to spend at the current expenditure rate. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $32,240,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,500,000 

The Committee is providing $16,500,000 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 intends to continue to provide a portion 

of these funds to Children’s National Medical Center for a new pediatric intensive care unit and neonatal intensive care unit and to 

St. Coletta’s of Greater Washington for its building project. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR THE ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT INITIATIVE IN

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $2,976,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 5,000,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,000,000 

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to continue to implement 

the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, which is $24,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $2,000,000 below the President’s 

budget request. 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 
14 

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. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND

SEWER AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $4,762,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,000,000 

The Committee recommends $5,000,000, to be matched 100 percent with local funds, for the Water and Sewer Authority [WASA] 

to implement the Combined Sewer Overflow Program. This is 

$238,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2005. 

The President requested no funds for this purpose. 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, 2005 ............................................................................. $2,480,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for transportation assist- ance in the District of Columbia, which is $1,480,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted level. The President did not request funds for 

this purpose. 

The Committee intends that these resources be for expenses related to phase I implementation of the District’s downtown 

circulator transit system. This new surface transportation service 

will provide 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. 
15 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR FOSTER CARE IMPROVEMENT

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $4,960,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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 longstanding 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. During fiscal year 2004 and 2005, the Committee provided a total of 

$20,000,000 to fund these efforts. The Committee was extremely 

disappointed that the District’s City Council voted to reduce local 

funding for CFSA in its fiscal year 2006 local budget. The Council 

took this action despite the objections of the Mayor, the Director 

of CFSA, the Court-appointed Federal judge who had served as the 

agency’s receiver, and child welfare advocates in the District. The 

Committee believes strongly that these actions will undermine the 

significant strides that CFSA had made with Federal support. Further, the Committee is concerned about the precedent that the 

Council has taken by using Federal funds to supplant local funds, 

despite the clear language in the Act and believes that the Council’s actions have violated the spirit of the law. 

Despite grave concerns that the Council will take a similar action 

next year, the Committee wants CFSA to continue to make improvements. Therefore, the Committee is providing funds to continue to provide loan repayment for social workers, to assist with 

post-adoption services and to continue to provide respite opportunities for foster parents. 

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 
16 

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. 

Concerns About the District’s Juvenile Justice System 

In fiscal year 2005, the Committee received a report and heard 

testimony from the District of Columbia’s Inspector General which 

detailed the deplorable conditions and wasteful management at the 

Oak Hill Youth Facility, the city’s juvenile detention facility. Afterwards, Committee members visited the campus to see the situation 

first-hand. The Committee found that not only are the buildings 

aged and decrepit, but as the Inspector General’s report stated, important services such as substance abuse treatment programs are 

unavailable for drug-addicted youths. Children who are detained 

and awaiting trial are commingled with those who are committed 

offenders. 

The Committee has stated that it agrees with the November 6, 

2001 recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Youth 
17 

Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform that Oak Hill be ‘‘closed and 

demolished.’’ It is an old, decrepit, institution that is inadequate for 

youth detention and undoubtedly very expensive to operate and 

maintain. The Committee is concerned at the continued slow pace 

of progress and urges District officials to follow the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission and shut down Oak Hill as 

quickly as feasible. 

The Committee is also concerned with the poor delivery of services to youth in the District’s court services and juvenile justice 

services agencies. The Committee strongly urges the District of Columbia government and all relevant agencies who participate in 

the welfare and oversight of troubled youth in the juvenile justice, 

education, mental health, and social services systems in the District to work together more closely and to diligently carry out the 

their responsibilities to better pursue and produce acceptable outcomes that demonstrate success in resolving all the district’s juvenile justice problems. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $39,680,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 41,616,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 41,616,000 

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 $320,000 above the fiscal year 2005 enacted level 

and $1,616,000 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 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 recommends $13,000,000 for the District of Columbia Public Schools [DCPS]. Of these funds, the Committee directs that not less than $250,000 shall be to support the Superintendent’s assessment of public school facilities. As it has since it 

first began providing funds for school improvement in fiscal year 

2004, the Committee continues to direct DCPS to use some of this 

appropriation to recruit and retain principals and teachers to 

strengthen leadership and instructional excellence. Further, DCPS 

is directed to use a portion of these funds to improve student 

achievement by providing supplemental services and enhancing 

public school choice. Within 30 days of enactment, DCPS must provide an expenditure plan for the use of this appropriation. 
18 

The Committee believes that some improvements were made 

with fiscal year 2004 and 2005 funding by rewarding excellence in 

D.C. public schools. 

Hearings on Education 

The Committee held two hearings on public education in the District of Columbia which informed the fiscal year 2006 recommendations. The first hearing, held on May 25, 2005 focused on the public 

school and public charter school systems in the District, highlighting many areas which need improvement. The second hearing, 

held on June 15, 2005 reviewed the fiscal year 2006 local funds 

budget to support education. 

During both of these hearings, the Committee learned the following troubling information. 

Poor Performance 

Only 32 percent of 4th graders in DCPS are reading at a basic 

level, compared to 62 percent nationally. Only 36 percent of these 

same students are performing at a basic level in math, compared 

to 77 percent nationally. This means that two out of every three 

4th graders in the District cannot read, multiply, or divide at the 

appropriate grade level. Special education students make up 20 

percent of the school system’s enrollment of 61,710 students—twice 

the national average for school districts. DCPS students scored approximately 200 points below the national average on the SAT. 

High Costs 

Per-pupil spending in the District of Columbia is the highest in 

the Nation. According to the National Education Association, the 

District spends $13,317 per pupil each year, which is much higher 

than the national average of $8,208. 

During its hearings, the Committee learned that insufficient 

funding is not the problem. To the contrary, according to the District’s Chief Financial Officer, funding for the District’s school system—including traditional public schools and charter schools—has 

increased 75 percent since fiscal year 1999, even though overall enrollment has actually dropped 5 percent during that same time period. Student enrollment in traditional public schools has dropped 

19 percent since fiscal year 1999, as parents have sought out other 

options for their children. Yet funding for traditional public schools 

(not including charter schools) has increased 38 percent over that 

same time period. It appears that the funding for DCPS is entirely 

decoupled from student enrollment. 

Despite large increases in spending, one-third of schools have no 

art or music education programs. Many school facilities remain 

open, even though they are well below capacity, are run-down or 

even unsafe. These past failures are significant and have contributed to the 37 percent adult illiteracy rate in the District. The 

DCPS superintendent testified that over 30 percent of DCPS teachers are not even certified. 

The Committee has lerned that DCPS spends only 50 cents of 

every operating dollar to directly educate its students. This is far 

below the national average of 61 percent and is lower than any of 

the 50 States. 
19 

Plan for Improvement 

The Committee understands that the District hired a new superintendent in August 2004 who has an ambitious plan to (1) improve teaching and learning in every classroom; (2) provide more 

efficient management and operations systems; and (3) increase collaborations with parents, civic organizations, businesses, and other 

city agencies. 

To accomplish the first goal, he plans to institute more challenging curriculum and standards, give high-performing schools 

greater autonomy, offer art and music education again, put new 

discipline policies in place, expand professional development for 

teachers, and partner with the business and civic community to 

gain their support for students. 

To accomplish the second goal, he plans to improve procurement 

processes, upgrade administrative systems, institute performancebased budgeting, complete a new information technology plan, and 

make the best use of all school facilities. 

To accomplish the third goal, he plans to provide more community briefings, open a new office devoted to parent involvement 

with 5 parent resource centers, and establish a business advisory 

committee to guide communications and outreach efforts city-wide. 

The Committee supports all of these planned efforts. 

Reason for Concern 

Although the Committee is supportive of the new DCPS superintendent and his plan for over hauling the D.C. school system, the 

Committee is aware that five DCPS superintendents have come 

and gone over the past 7 years. Often the varied attempts by these 

individuals to fix the problems were met with delay, denial, and 

dismissal. 

The Committee is informed that a number of schools with declining enrollments and in deteriorating condition should be closed and 

disposed of for some better purpose. The Committee believes that 

the savings achieved by closing under-utilized school buildings can 

be used to repair and improve the remaining school buildings. 

In addition, the Committee understands that 4,633 students submitted applications to attend a public school outside of their neighborhood. There are 3,276 students on waiting lists at various 

schools in the District, with some schools’ waiting lists as long as 

250. The Committee would strongly support DCPS allocating funds 

to replicate successful pubic school models in neighborhoods identified in need of additional public school options. 

The Committee understands that DCPS’ information technology 

[IT] systems are plagued with problems. In his own strategic plan, 

the superintendent states that DCPS’ IT systems are 10–15 years 

behind industry norms and that DCPS suffers from a ‘‘huge technology gap.’’ These severe IT problems undermine DCPS’ ability to 

carry out its underlying mission. The Committee believes that the 

nature and complexity of these IT problems warrant a comprehensive, long-term solution. As the superintendent works to address 

this problem, the Committee recommends that he seek assistance 

from the State Information Technology Consortium [SITC], a nonprofit organization with substantial experience in the development 

of IT collaborative solutions. SITC is well-suited to help DCPS de-
20 

velop practical, cost-effective solutions using existing technology investments. 

The Committee is supportive of the vision of the new superintendent and believes that he is personally and professionally 

skilled to make major improvements to the current system. 

However, the Committee plans to monitor the progress of DCPS’ 

improvement—both in student achievement and in resource and facilities management. The Committee intends to intervene in the 

coming year if improvements in these areas are not achieved. 

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 initiatives within the amount provided for charter schools: $4,000,000 for the Direct Loan Fund for 

Charter Schools; $2,000,000 for Credit Enhancement; $2,000,000 

for continuation of the City Build Charter School Program; 

$1,500,000 for flexible grants; $2,000,000 only for grants for public 

charter schools for improvement of public school facilities which are 

leased or owned by public charter schools; $400,000 for college access programming; $300,000 to create a truancy center; $250,000 

for administration of Federal entitlement funding; $300,000 for 

data collection and analysis; and $250,000 for administration within the State Education Office. In addition, the Mayor of the District 

of Columbia is directed to continue the Public Education Improvement Incentive Grant program created in fiscal year 2005 with unobligated funds. Grant awards are a significant incentive to raising 

student achievement and supporting principals in their everyday 

work. 

The Committee has played a significant role in the development 

of public charter schools in the District of Columbia. With 42 public 

charter schools now educating 21 percent of the student population, 

the District of Columbia has the distinction of having more charter 

schools per capita than any other city or State in the Nation. In 

fiscal year 2005 the Committee included language engaging the 

Government Accountability Office [GAO] to study the performance 

of the D.C. charter school authorizing boards (or ‘‘authorizers’’) in 

their approval and oversight roles. The authorizers in the District 

are the D.C. Board of Education and the D.C. Public Charter 

School Board. Specifically, the GAO was required to report on the 

performance of the authorizers in their role in monitoring the quality of instruction provided to the students attending charter 

schools. In the report, ‘‘Charter Schools—Oversight Practices in the 

District of Columbia’’, issued in May 2005, the GAO found that 

under current law charter school authorizers are prohibited from 

revoking a charter for failure to accomplish the schools’ academic 

goals before 5 years from issuance of the charter. The Committee 

is concerned that this unduly restricts the authorizers from taking 

necessary steps to ensure that the schools they charter are providing a quality education to their students. 

In the District of Columbia 19 schools are required under the No 

Child Left Behind Act to be making annual yearly progress [AYP] 
21 

toward their academic goals, of which only 9 achieved AYP. The 

Committee strongly believes that the charter school authorizers 

should have all the tools they need to provide oversight and support to the schools they charter. Therefore, the Committee strongly 

urges the Mayor and Council to review the requirements of both 

the D.C. School Reform Act and the No Child Left Behind Act and 

make any legislative changes necessary to ensure consistency between the two acts regarding the promotion of school quality. At 

a minimum, the law governing charter school authorization and 

oversight in the District should not constrain or prohibit authorizers from taking appropriate action to ensure that the public charter schools under their purview are reaching the academic achievement expectations required by the school charter or NCLB. 

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. 

Co-location.—The Committee commends the Superintendent of 

the District of Columbia Public Schools and the Board of Education 

for assessing excess space in public school facilities and making 

some space available to pubic charter schools in need of appropriate school facilities immediately. The Committee understands 

that 10 public schools with underutilized classrooms will share 

space with a public charter school in the fall of 2005, so called ‘‘colocations’’. 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 § 38– 

1831.01(b)(2)) because rental payments from charter schools provide a reliable revenue source for host schools. The Committee 

strongly supports the Superintendent as co-location leases are implemented for school year 2005–2006. 

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. These socalled ‘‘surplus school properties’’ have been utilized for the following purposes: 6 have been sold to charter schools; 10 have been 

leased to charter schools; 5 are being used by D.C. Public Schools 

for office space; 3 are being used for shelter from homelessness; 4 

are being used for government office space; 5 are vacant; 7 have 

been sold for economic development; and 2 are being leased to private entities. 

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 requests 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 
22 

profit generated from any prior sales to more fully understand the 

benefit to the city. 

The Committee strongly encourages the city to create a mechanism whereby the proceeds from sales or leases of surplus public 

school property are deposited into a segregated account for school 

facilities improvement. The proceeds would enable the Superintendent to improve the entire system at a time when facilities 

funding is limited. This year public charter schools spent $11,000,000 on the private 

real estate market to renovate facilities for educational use, and it 

is projected that charter schools will spend an additional 

$16,000,000 next year. 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. 

Incubator Facility.—The Committee strongly supports the creation of regional incubator facilities for public charter schools to 

house a small number of new schools in each facility for a limited 

time. The Committee directs that no later than February 1, 2006 

the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall obligate prior year 

funding for such a facility or facilities, in partnership with the 

Building Hope Charter School Facilities Fund. 

City Build Charter School Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue the City Build Charter School Program. 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 strongly encourages that public charter schools which demonstrate community service activities, such 

as family literacy programs, 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 Mayor of the District of Columbia is directed to use up to 

$500,000 of prior year unobligated funds to conduct an independent 

study of how public school options may attract or retain families 

to live in the District of Columbia. Of these funds, the State Education Office may use such sums as necessary for administration 

of the study and creation of a database of where families live and 

attend school. 

To achieve the goal of attracting or retaining residents, the independent study shall assess the opportunity for schools to enhance 

neighborhoods; the capacity and desire of residents for authorizing 

specific neighborhood-based public charter schools; and recommendations on new policies necessary to encourage connections 

among schools and community. In addition, the study shall identify 

communities in the District which have recently experienced shifts 

in population, specifically of families with school-age children; com-
23 

munities where high quality public school options are at capacity; 

and communities that have recently undergone or will undergo in 

the near future residential development. This study shall inform 

the Mayor’s selection of ‘‘City Build Communities.’’ 

Improving Opportunities for School Choice 

The Committee recommendation includes $14,000,000 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 K 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 and middle 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 year launch of the 

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. In a very brief period, the 

Washington Scholarship Fund [WSF], the grantee administering 

the program, has accepted applications from more than 5,400 students. The Committee understands the challenges that WSF has 

met, given the speed with which the organization had to design, 

launch, and recruit for the historic new demonstration project in 

school choice. Even so, WSF has made substantial progress in the 

inaugural months of the program, as noted by the U.S. Department 

of Education in its first report to Congress on the program. 

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: 

—More than 1,800 eligible, low-income D.C. children applied for 

the program for the 2004–2005 school year during an extremely brief application period necessitated by the lateness of 

the law’s passage. 

—The average household income of the 2004–2005 applicants 

was $18,742, far below the statutory requirement of 185 percent of the poverty level. 

—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. 

—Based on applicant levels to date for 2005–2006, there will be 

enough students for both the ‘‘treatment’’ and ‘‘control’’ groups 

in all 13 grades (K–12) to provide a sufficient sample for the 

rigorous, federally mandated evaluation of the program. 

In addition to these conclusions from the Department of Education’s April report, the Committee notes that last fall, 1,029 students entered D.C. non-public schools using Opportunity Scholar-
24 

ships. The first year of the program offered scholarship recipients 

a choice of 58 participating schools. Over 95 percent of students 

who started the school year stayed in the program. 

The Committee is pleased that more than 1,000 students have 

received scholarships for the upcoming school year, 2005–2006, and 

that there are nearly 900 students in the control group for the Federal evaluation, including students in all 13 grades, K–12. 

Private High School Capacity is Inadequate 

Against the backdrop of this very promising start, the Committee 

is concerned that there is a shortage of spaces in D.C. non-public 

high schools for students with scholarships. The Committee understands that presently there is a mismatch between the number of 

high school spaces available and the number of scholarship students seeking a space in a D.C. non-public high school. As a result, 

students already in possession of a scholarship will have to leave 

the program due to the capacity constraint. This is a problem for 

the families and the students who will not have access to the choice 

they were awarded by virtue of receiving the scholarship. It will 

also have a deleterious effect on the Federal evaluation since some 

students in the ‘‘treatment’’ group will not in fact be able to use 

their scholarships and will not receive their desired ‘‘treatment.’’ 

Capacity Problem Will Worsen Every Year 

This is a problem that has already surfaced for the upcoming 

school year, but it will only get worse in the 3 subsequent years 

of the demonstration project. Specifically, for the 2005–2006 school 

year there are between 40 and 60 high school students still looking 

for a school. Even without distributing any new scholarships in 

grades 6 through 12, the number of high school students who cannot find a space is expected to grow each year as current middle 

school students graduate: 152 8th graders entering high school in 

year 3, 175 7th graders entering high school in year 4, and 179 6th 

graders entering high school in year 5. At this rate by the final 

year of the demonstration project, there will be 606 students in 

high school, even with no new scholarships being distributed past 

the fifth grade. If no action is taken, nearly 75 percent of students 

holding scholarships to attend high school will be unable to use 

them because of limited capacity. 

Reasons for Capacity Problems 

The Committee has been informed that there are apparently two 

primary reasons that capacity is limited in the high school grades: 

(1) the scholarship cap of $7,500 is below the cost of tuition and 

fees in the vast majority of D.C. non-public high schools, creating 

a financial hardship for schools who enroll scholarship students; (2) 

the requirement that students attend only schools within the District of Columbia severely limits the slots available at the high 

school level. 

The Committee plans to hold hearings to learn from expert witnesses about the full extent of the capacity limitations for the upcoming year and the subsequent academic years. It also intends to 

explore options for addressing these challenges, and to understand 
25 

the implications of students not using their scholarships on the federally-mandated evaluation. 

The Committee deeply regrets that, because of a shortage of 

available spaces in D.C. non-public high schools, a number of students who are already enrolled in the scholarship program for 8th 

grade will be forced to return to failing public schools—negating 

the very choice of an alternative which the program was designed 

to create. The Committee also regrets that a number of students 

who applied for and successfully received scholarships through the 

lottery will not be able to use their scholarships after all. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR FORENSICS AND BIOTERRORISM LABORATORY

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. $7,936,000 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... 7,200,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 7,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,200,000 

The Committee recommends $5,200,000 for costs associated with 

the construction of a new bioterrorism and forensics laboratory in 

the District of Columbia. This is $2,000,000 less than the President’s budget and $2,736,000 below the fiscal year 2005 enacted 

level. 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. 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. The Committee expects the District to provide at least an additional $1,500,000 in local funds for the costs associated with this 

new laboratory. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR MARRIAGE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $3,000,000 

Children Born to Married Parents Usually Have Brighter Futures 

The Committee is informed that every year almost 57 percent of 

babies born to residents of the District of Columbia are born to single mothers. This is more than 40 percent higher than the national 

average. The Committee understands that children raised by 

never-married mothers are 7 times more likely to be poor compared 

to those children born to married parents and that over 80 percent 

of long-term child poverty occurs in broken or never-married families. 

The Committee believes that marriage has an enormous potential to reduce poverty among couples who are unmarried at the 

time of their child’s birth. Studies show that increasing the number 

of healthy marriages would also have substantial non-economic 
26 

benefits for children. For example, children who are raised in marriage by their biological mother and father are less likely to have 

emotional and behavioral problems, to be physically abused, to become involved in crime, to fail in school, to abuse drugs, and to end 

up on welfare as adults. 

Promoting Teen Abstinence has Positive Results 

The Committee is aware of the negative effects of sexual behavior among teenagers. Studies show that girls who begin sexual activity at an early age are more likely to become pregnant and give 

birth out of wedlock and to be single mothers. Since single mothers 

are far more likely to be poor, early sexual activity is linked to 

higher levels of child and maternal poverty. The Committee believes that abstinence education programs aid in encouraging teenagers to delay sexual activity and the negative consequences associated with it. 

Marriage Development Accounts 

The Committee understands that most children born and raised 

in households where their biological parents are married are more 

financially and emotionally stable. 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 businesses, the Committee is providing funds to establish ‘‘Marriage Development Accounts’’ 

[MDAs] in the District of Columbia. MDAs will be available to married couples who are citizens or legal residents of the District of Columbia whose Federal adjusted gross income does not exceed 

$50,000 and whose net worth is less than $10,000 (excluding a primary residence and one vehicle). 

Participating couples 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 will receive training that helps them repair their credit, set a budget and savings schedule, and manage 

their money. The Capital Area Asset Building Corporation [CAAB], 

a non-profit organization which is already assisting low-income individuals through a network of community service providers, will 

manage this new program. The MDAs will be held by CAAB at 

local financial institutions. 

Pre-Marriage Development Accounts 

The Committee is also providing funds for pre-Marriage Development Accounts [pMDAs], which will be available to engaged couples, each of whom is 18 or older and whose combined adjusted 

gross income is less than $50,000 and whose total net worth is less 

than $10,000. These accounts will also be available to individuals 

aged 16–22 who are not married, do not have children, and whose 

adjusted gross income is less than $25,000 (non-dependant individual’s income) or $50,000 (dependant individual’s household income). 

pMDAs will give young people and couples who are about to be 

married the financial tools and life skills training to make positive 

choices and well-informed plans for the future. pMDAs will help 

engaged couples build a strong financial and emotional foundation 

to help foster successful and long-term marriages. pMDAs will also 
27 

help low-income youths gain a longer-term perspective and provide 

incentives and training to make economically—and emotionally— 

sound life decisions. 

Implementation 

The Committee is providing $1,500,000 to the Capital Area Asset 

Building Corporation [CAAB] to implement MDAs and pMDAs. 

CAAB is a non-profit organization currently serving a consortium 

of community service providers which are working with low-income 

families and individuals in the District of Columbia. CAAB will establish the MDAs and will jointly hold deposits with a qualified financial institution. Of the funds provided, the Committee intends 

that $400,000 shall be for program planning, marketing, evaluation 

account administration, and services to account holders. 

For each dollar that the couple or youth deposits, CAAB will re- serve a $3 match in a separate parallel account, using Federal and 

private or local funds. The Committee directs CAAB to provide an 

accounting of all funds deposited—Federal, local, and private—by 

June 30, 2006. 

When the accountholder has accumulated enough savings and 

matching funds to purchase the asset and has completed a financial education course, payments from the MDA will be made directly to the asset provider such as a university or a financial institution. Couples who open an account and subsequently attend at 

least four marriage counseling classes will be eligible for a bonus 

of $300 for their account. 

Restrictions on Funds 

MDAs and pMDAs may only be used to: (1) buy a home; (2) pay 

for post-secondary education or vocational training; or (3) start or 

expand a small business. Accountholders must attend at least 8 

hours of financial education prior to withdrawing the matching 

funds to purchase the asset. Asset-specific training will also be 

available. The funds in the accounts must be invested within 3 

years and the matched amount will only be paid directly to the 

asset provider such as a college or a job training facility or a financial institution. At the end of the 3 year period, any match funds 

that are not used shall be returned to the general match pool so 

that these funds may be reallocated to new enrollees. The couple 

must then withdraw any of their own savings from the MDA and 

transfer them to their bank account. 

Engaged couples must marry prior to withdrawing funds from 

their pMDAs. Upon marriage, couples will receive a $200 bonus to 

pay for costs associated with marriage licenses and other fees. If 

the couple does not marry, neither will be entitled to the Federalprivate matching funds in the account. In the event of certain life 

circumstances, one partner may receive half of the match. These 

life circumstances are limited to the death of the fiance ́, a conviction of a felony or misdemeanor crime of the fiance ́, or an indictment for domestic violence. 

Single individuals aged 16–22 who remain unmarried and childless may contribute to their accounts for up to 4 years. The participating community service providers will provide credit counseling, 

debt management counseling, and asset-specific training. Couples 
28 

who participate in pre-marital and marital counseling will receive 

a $300 bonus in their accounts. Unmarried youths will be required 

to receive life-skills training, and to work with mentors to develop 

long-term education, job training, and asset-building goals. 

CAAB and its participating service providers shall work with the 

East Capitol Center for Change and its network of faith-based organizations and the National Center for Fathering to ensure that 

these services are offered to all accountholders. 

Federal Match 

The Committee is requiring that for every $3 in Federal funds 

for MDAs and pMDAs, the Capital Area Asset Building Corporation provide $1 in matching funds which shall be obtained from private entities. 

No more than a total of $9,000 of Federal and private matching 

funds may be provided to any participating married or engaged 

couple and no more than $4,500 of Federal and private matching 

funds may be provided to unmarried youths. 

Promoting Successful Marriages and Encouraging Positive Life Decisions 

The Committee is providing $650,000 for the East Capitol Center 

for Change [ECCC] and $850,000 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 will work 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 will work with the faith community to provide premarital 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 nonprofit 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 FOR LATINO YOUTH INITIATIVE

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $2,000,000 
29 

The Committee is concerned about the problems and challenges 

facing many Latino youth in the District of Columbia. Latino youth 

make up more than 25 percent of the under-18 population in the 

District of Columbia, compared to 10 percent nationally. Many of 

these young people do not have adequate access to key services including health insurance, health care and education and job training. The Latino dropout rate in the District is estimated to be in 

the range of 50 percent. In addition, Latino families earned 54 percent less than the average District resident which is significant 

since income level is often affects educational achievement. Educational disparities are especially acute for English Language 

Learners who constitute a majority of Latino students in the District. 

A study released earlier this year by the Equal Rights Center 

documented that Spanish-speaking applicants for services such as 

Medicaid or Children’s Health Insurance experienced some form of 

discrimination about 50 percent of the time in their encounters 

with the Department of Health, often when applying for coverage 

on behalf of Latino children who are U.S. citizens. This is troubling, especially since Latinos in the District are more likely than 

other Americans to experience certain health problems such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and certain cancers. 

The Committee has also learned that Latino youth are disproportionately represented in the various stages of the criminal justice 

system in the District. Data from the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, showed that while the total number of arrests decreased 

from 1999 to 2000, the number of arrests of Latinos increased by 

almost 25 percent. For these reasons, the Committee has included $2,000,000 to 

begin a Latino youth initiative in the District. 

Strengthening Latino Youth Programs 

The Committee is providing $1,250,000 to The National Council 

of La Raza [NCLR] to improve health and educational outcomes of 

Latino children and promote violence prevention among Latino 

youth in the District. Working in partnership with its communitybased affiliates in the Metropolitan area, NCLR will establish a 

multi-faceted demonstration project focused on health, education, 

and violence prevention among Latino children and youth in the region. This initiative will build on and be integrated into existing, 

successful NCLR programs that serve and collaborate with low-income Latino children and youth. 

A key component of this effort will be the development of cadres 

of promotores or lay community promoters as a primary pathway 

to deliver culturally competent and language appropriate information to Latino communities on health and violence prevention. 

The objective of NCLR’s work in the District will be to mobilize 

Latinos to take action in improving their children’s health status 

and preventing violence and promoting well-being in their communities. One such strategy, the use of promotores, has been pioneered by NCLR and its affiliates in a number of health-related 

contexts, mainly in the Southwest. NCLR proposes to expand this 

approach to the D.C. region, target it toward children’s health, and 

to study its potential effectiveness as a tool for gang-related vio-
30 

lence prevention. NCLR’s will also support, promote, and document 

the implementation of these demonstration programs to inform policy and practice more broadly across the region and the Nation. 

The Committee intends that resources will be divided among the 

core health and gang violence elements of the program and will 

support the work of the partner community-based affiliates in the 

D.C. area. Within each core element of the program, the Committee 

expects the bulk of the resources will be allocated to program interventions. 

Improving Latino Education 

The Committee has included $400,000 for the Mid Atlantic Equity Consortium, Inc. [MAEC] to administer a Latino Education 

Initiative. MAEC will administer a program aimed at reducing 

dropout rates and increasing achievement of Latino students, especially those who are English Language Learners [ELL]. MAEC will 

use research on Latino student achievement and available community resources to make policy recommendations. The Committee intends that MAEC should serve as the fiscal agent for these funds 

and may contract with or sub-grant to eligible entities in order to 

carry out the intent of the funding. 

Of this amount, the Committee has included sufficient funds for 

a Latino Education Director who will oversee and coordinate citywide efforts to improve educational opportunities and outcomes for 

Latino students. 

The Committee is informed that MAEC has expertise in this area 

and has been working with DCPS on related issues for several 

years. Because it is an independent nonprofit, it has the ability to 

work citywide to ensure that ELL and Latino students are wellserved whether they attend DCPS, charter, or non-public schools. 

MAEC will coordinate the recruitment and hiring of the Latino 

Education Director. The Director will have responsibility to coordinate with all relevant parties: the District Government, DCPS, 

Charter Schools, Non-Public Schools, and community-based organizations involved in serving Latino students. 

The Committee is also providing $400,000 for the Latin American Youth Center [LAYC] YouthBuild Public Charter School 

[YouthBuild PCS], a newly approved charter school that takes to 

scale a highly successful program that the LAYC has operated for 

10 years. The YouthBuild program has worked with D.C.’s most 

troubled youth—high school dropouts, former gang members, teen 

parents, adjudicated youth—and helped them obtain a GED and 

gain job skills in the construction industry while creating housing 

for homeless and low-income D.C. residents. 

The Committee understands that the YouthBuild Public Charter 

School combines academics and vocational training in one of D.C.’s 

fastest-growing job markets; benefits the community by rehabilitating low-income housing while teaching students construction 

skills; and is a proven program being taken to a larger scale. 

The promotion of education reform in small alternative settings 

in our Nation’s capital has been a priority for the Congress. The 

YouthBuild PCS is fostering that reform by taking the most disconnected and disadvantaged youth in the Nation’s capital and ensuring that the educational system works for them as well. 
31 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR PRISONER RE-ENTRANT HOUSING

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $2,000,000 

The Committee is providing $3,000,000 for a Prisoner Reentrant 

Housing Initiative in the District of Columbia. 

Many Ex-Offenders Face Homelessness 

The Committee understands that every year 2,500 former prisoners return home to the District. Returning offenders are assigned 

to the Court Services and Offender Supervisor Agency [CSOSA] for 

release plan investigation during parole or probation term. Those 

who cannot identify a safe place to live are assigned to halfway 

houses where their stays are capped at 120 days. 

Preventing Homelessness can Reduce Recidivism 

The Committee believes strongly that reducing the likelihood of 

homelessness for those exiting the halfway house system is critical 

to combating recidivism among returning prisoners. 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 relationship 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. 

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. 

Incentives to Provide Housing for Ex-Offenders 

The Committee intends that the funding provided be used to 

offer incentives to encourage developers and non-profit organizations to rehabilitate or construct new housing for reentrants in 

order to increase the pool of available housing for those exiting the 

criminal justice system. Construction funding will be administered 

by the District’s Department of Housing and Community Development [DHCD], which has the infrastructure in place to monitor 

housing construction incentives as part of the Housing Production 
32 

Trust Fund. DHCD will issue a special Notice of Funding Availability [NOFA] to solicit developers of these housing units. The 

NOFA will include the following restrictions on developers using 

the funds: (1) the developer must derive reentrant tenants from 

designated non-profit support service agencies, (2) the units must 

be dedicated to reentrants for a period of at least 25 years, (3) the 

operating funds for the first 6 months of tenancy will be eligible 

project expenses. 

Federal-Local Partnership 

The Committee directs the District to partner with the federallyfunded Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA] 

in this effort, which provides parole supervision services. The Committee understands that the District will offer participants access 

to job readiness and employment opportunities, healthcare services, 

education, child care, substance abuse counseling, and mental 

health services. 

Rental Reimbursement for On-site Mentors 

The Committee believes that mentors play a crucial role in helping ex-offenders successfully reintegrate into society by providing 

them with emotional, psychological, spiritual and motivational support. Mentors can help ex-offenders find employment, make sure 

that they attend counseling sessions, and encourage them to reconcile with family members. 

A portion of the funds provided by the Committee is for rental 

reimbursements for mentors who agree to live in the same housing 

development as the ex-offenders. Since these mentors will live in 

close proximity to the program participants, they will be much 

more accessible and better able to provide one-on-one support. As 

a condition of receiving these funds, the District must work with 

CSOSA to match mentors with participants. CSOSA has trained 

200 mentors to date through its Faith-Based Reentry Initiative. 

The Committee believes that these mentors will make excellent 

candidates for this program. Recognizing the significant Latino 

population in the District, the Committee directs the District and 

CSOSA to ensure that participants are matched with bilingual 

mentors. 

Concerns About Overcrowding at D.C. Jail 

The Committee is disappointed that the Council of the District 

of Columbia reduced the proposed fiscal year 2006 local funds 

budget for the D.C. Department of Corrections by $4,000,000 at a 

time when there is serious overcrowding at the D.C. Jail. The Committee believes that this cut will impair the Department’s ability 

to fully and securely staff its facilities and will also limit its ability 

to move jail inmates to available beds in nearby contract facilities. 

The Committee urges the Council, the Mayor, and the D.C. Department of Corrections to rectify this funding shortage. 
33 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE

PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2005 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2006 ........................................................................... ........................... 

House allowance .................................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $500,000 

The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for the creation of a D.C. National Guard Youth Challenge Program for atrisk youth. Youth ChalleNGe is a community-based program to 

help youth obtain a GED or high school diploma through mentoring, leadership and citizenship training, and community service. 

USE OF FEDERAL LANDS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The Committee is pleased that the President has recently proposed legislation to convey more than 200 acres of Federal land to 

the District. The Committee believes that converting Federal land 

to local use will not only enable the District to broaden its constricted tax base, but will allow the District to make better use of 

these land parcels. According to the Mayor, this transfer will ‘‘simultaneously create economic opportunity, improve life for many 

D.C. residents and advance home rule.’’ The Committee notes that 

the Director of the Office of Management and Budget described the 

administration’s proposal as a ‘‘first step in a broader examination 

of underutilized Federal lands that may be considered for future 

conveyance to the District.’’ To facilitate and expedite the better 

use of these properties, the Committee directs the District to seek 

the independent assistance of a firm to conduct an assessment of 

reuse options through, among other things, land transfers, revised 

lease arrangements, and joint ventures to determine the best use 

of the parcels. The firm should have extensive experience and an 

in-depth knowledge of all facets of the real estate capital markets 

and real estate valuation. In addition to industry knowledge, the 

firm should be independent and have an understanding and appreciation of the various stakeholders with an interest in the land survey program. The Committee directs the District to report on its 

progress with respect to firm recruitment and a plan for the Federal land survey by March 31, 2006. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL OPERATING BUDGET

The Committee recommends a total of $8,700,158,000 for the operating expenses of the District of Columbia as contained in the fiscal year 2006 budget submitted to the Congress by the Government 

of the District of Columbia on June 6, 2005. Of the total, 

$5,007,344,000 is from local funds, $1,921,287,000 is from Federal 

grant funds, $1,754,399,000 is from other funds, $17,129,000 is 

from private funds, and $163,116,000 is from prior year 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 2006: 
34 

FISCAL YEAR 2006 FINANCIAL PLAN 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Local Funds Grants and Other 

Revenue Gross funds 

Revenues 

Local Sources: 

Property Taxes ............................................................................... 1,242,479 ........................ 1,242,479 

Sales Taxes ................................................................................... 876,129 ........................ 876,129 

Income Taxes ................................................................................ 1,405,670 ........................ 1,405,670 

Gross Receipts .............................................................................. 246,891 ........................ 246,891 

Other Taxes ................................................................................... 330,364 ........................ 330,364 

Licenses and Permits ................................................................... 66,470 ........................ 66,470 

Fines and Forfeitures .................................................................... 113,613 ........................ 113,613 

Charges/Services ........................................................................... 56,436 ........................ 56,436 

Miscellaneous ................................................................................ 416,335 ........................ 416,335 

Fund Balance Use ......................................................................... 591,642 ........................ 591,642 

Transfers to Capital ...................................................................... (30,000 ) ........................ (30,000 ) 

Revenue Proposals/Onetime Revenues ......................................... 8,729 ........................ 8,729 

Subtotal Local Revenues .......................................................... 5,324,758 ........................ 5,324,758 

Federal and Other Sources: 

Federal Payments .......................................................................... .......................... 34,500 34,500 

Federal Grants .............................................................................. .......................... 1,904,539 1,904,539 

Private Grants ............................................................................... .......................... 16,213 16,213 

Subtotal Federal Sources Revenues ......................................... .......................... 1,955,252 1,955,252 

Other Financing Sources: 

Lottery Transfer ............................................................................. 73,100 ........................ 73,100 

Total General Fund Revenues .................................................. 5,397,858 1,955,252 7,353,110 

Expenditures 

Current Operating: 

Governmental Direction and Support ........................................... 340,859 171,975 512,834 

Economic Development and Regulation ....................................... 328,156 118,312 446,468 

Public Safety and Justice ............................................................. 827,037 10,577 837,614 

Public Education System .............................................................. 1,189,302 240,194 1,429,496 

Human Support Services .............................................................. 1,307,530 1,405,819 2,713,349 

Public Works ................................................................................. 366,101 8,375 374,476 

Financing and Other ..................................................................... 588,717 ........................ 588,717

Cash Reserve (Budgeted Contingency) ........................................ 50,000 ........................ 50,000 

Lease Purchase Costs ................................................................... .......................... ........................ ..........................

Subtotal, Operating Expenditures ............................................ 4,997,702 1,955,252 6,952,954 

Paygo Capital ................................................................................ 207,083 ........................ 207,083 

Transfer to Trust Fund for Post-Employment Benefits ................ 138,000 ........................ 138,000 

General Fund Contribution to Capital Fund Balance ................... 53,800 ........................ 53,800 

Total General Fund Expenditures ............................................. 5,396,585 1,955,252 7,351,837 

Operating Margin, Budget Basis .................................................. 1,273 ........................ 1,273 
35 

GOVERNMENTAL DIRECTION AND SUPPORT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity Approved fis- cal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 request Intra-District Fiscal year 2006 less Intra-district Committee recommenda- tion Intra-District Committee recommenda- tion Bill compared with— Fiscal year 2005 approved Fiscal year 2006 request 

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ............................................... 12,809 14,038 ...................... 14,038 14,038 ...................... 14,038 1,230 ....................OFFICE OF THE D.C. AUDITOR .................................................................. 1,784 2,008 ...................... 2,008 2,008 ...................... 2,008 224 ....................ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS .............................................. 976 976 ...................... 976 976 ...................... 976 ...................... ....................OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ............................................................................ 10,439 13,454 (110 ) 13,343 13,454 (110 ) 13,343 3,014 ....................OFFICE OF SECRETARY ............................................................................ 3,679 4,241 ...................... 4,241 4,241 ...................... 4,241 563 ....................CUSTOMER SERVICE OPERATIONS ........................................................... 1,052 1,048 (695 ) 353 1,048 (695 ) 353 (3 ) ....................OFFICE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR ............................................................. 111,424 173,880 (584 ) 173,297 173,880 (584 ) 173,297 62,456 ....................OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 2,023 2,365 (500 ) 1,865 2,365 (500 ) 1,865 343 ....................OFFICE OF PERSONNEL ............................................................................ 14,056 13,544 (2,594 ) 10,950 13,544 (2,594 ) 10,950 (511 ) ....................HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ........................................................ 1,978 2,000 ...................... 2,000 2,000 ...................... 2,000 22 ....................OFFICE OF FINANCE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ............................... 188,016 200,888 (190,259 ) 10,630 200,888 (190,259 ) 10,630 12,873 ....................OFFICE OF CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT ....................................... 12,334 14,642 (1,653 ) 12,989 14,642 (1,653 ) 12,989 2,308 ....................OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER ......................................... 44,685 43,474 (4,052 ) 39,422 43,474 (4,052 ) 39,422 (1,211 ) ....................OFFICE OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ....................................................... 61,625 69,346 (49,795 ) 19,551 69,346 (49,795 ) 19,551 7,721 ....................CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD .................................................................... 764 806 ...................... 806 806 ...................... 806 42 ....................BOARD OF ELECTION & ETHICS ............................................................... 4,805 5,042 ...................... 5,042 5,042 ...................... 5,042 237 ....................OFFICE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE ............................................................... 1,324 1,374 ...................... 1,374 1,374 ...................... 1,374 50 ....................PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD .................................................... 776 801 ...................... 801 801 ...................... 801 25 ....................OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE APPEALS ............................................................... 1,536 1,589 ...................... 1,589 1,589 ...................... 1,589 53 ....................METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS .................... 926 440 ...................... 440 440 ...................... 440 (486 ) ....................OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ................................................................................................ 62,381 66,275 (2,392 ) 63,883 66,275 (2,392 ) 63,883 3,894 ....................OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ...................................................... 11,295 12,942 ...................... 12,942 12,942 ...................... 12,942 1,647 ....................OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER .............................................. 107,054 124,242 (3,951 ) 120,291 124,242 (3,951 ) 120,291 17,189 ....................EMERGENCY PURCHASE CARDS .............................................................. .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................

TOTAL, GOVERNMENTAL DIRECTION AND SUPPORT ................... 657,740 769,418 (256,585 ) 512,834 769,418 (256,585 ) 512,834 111,678 ....................
36 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity Approved fis- cal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 request Intra-District Fiscal year 2006 less Intra-district Committee recommenda- tion Intra-District Committee recommenda- tion Bill compared with— Fiscal year 2005 approved Fiscal year 2006 request 

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY MAYOR OF PLANNING ........................................ 22,309 42,980 ...................... 42,980 42,980 ...................... 42,980 20,671 ....................OFFICE OF PLANNING ............................................................................... 6,512 6,673 ...................... 6,673 6,673 ...................... 6,673 162 ....................OFFICE OF LOCAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ........................................... 1,040 1,438 ...................... 1,438 1,438 ...................... 1,438 398 ....................OFFICE OF MOTION PICTURES AND TELEVISION ...................................... 564 579 ...................... 579 579 ...................... 579 15 ....................OFFICE OF ZONING ................................................................................... 2,581 2,902 ...................... 2,902 2,902 ...................... 2,902 321 ....................DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ..................... 145,265 210,710 ...................... 210,710 210,710 ...................... 210,710 65,445 ....................DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES .............................................. 88,345 93,048 (2,534 ) 90,514 93,048 (2,534 ) 90,514 4,702 ....................BOARD OF APPEALS AND REVIEW ............................................................ .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................BOARD OF REAL PROPERTY ASSES. & APPEALS ..................................... 342 431 ...................... 431 431 ...................... 431 89 ....................DEPARTMENT CONSUMER & REGULATORY AFFAIRS ................................ 37,247 40,251 (106 ) 40,145 40,251 (106 ) 40,145 3,003 ....................COMMISSION ON ARTS & HUMANITIES .................................................... 9,918 (20) 9,898 9,918 (20) 9,898 9,918 ......................ALCOHOL BEVERAGE REGULATION ADMINISTRATION ............................... 4,877 4,702 ...................... 4,702 4,702 ...................... 4,702 (175 ) ....................DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ................................................................ 7,656 7,976 ...................... 7,976 7,976 ...................... 7,976 320 ....................OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNSEL ........................................................ 3,885 4,306 ...................... 4,306 4,306 ...................... 4,306 421 ....................DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, SECURITIES AND BANKING ...................... 13,675 14,158 ...................... 14,158 14,158 ...................... 14,158 483 ....................OFFICE OF CABLE TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ................... 4,000 5,054 ...................... 5,054 5,054 ...................... 5,054 1,054 ....................HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBSIDY ................................................................ .................... 4,003 ...................... 4,003 4,003 ...................... 4,003 4,003 ....................

TOTAL, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ................. 338,298 449,128 (2,660 ) 446,468 449,128 (2,660 ) 446,468 110,830 ....................

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity Approved fis- cal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 request Intra-District Fiscal year 2006 less Intra-district Committee recommenda- tion Intra-District Committee recommenda- tion Bill compared with— Fiscal year 2005 approved Fiscal year 2006 request 

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT ...................................................... 372,561 377,488 (5,398 ) 372,089 377,488 (5,398 ) 372,089 4,926 ....................FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ..................................... 145,364 156,268 (368 ) 155,900 156,268 (368 ) 155,900 10,904 ....................POLICE OFFICERS’ & FIRE FIGHTERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM .................. 112,100 117,500 ...................... 117,500 117,500 ...................... 117,500 5,400 ....................
37 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS .............................................................. 121,447 132,686 (1,934 ) 130,751 132,686 (1,934 ) 130,751 11,239 ....................NATIONAL GUARD ..................................................................................... 3,253 3,428 ...................... 3,428 3,428 ...................... 3,428 175 ....................D.C. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ............................................... 5,030 5,495 ...................... 5,495 5,495 ...................... 5,495 465 ....................COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISABILITIES & TENURE ................................ 213 218 ...................... 218 218 ...................... 218 5 ....................JUDICIAL NOMINATION COMMISSION ........................................................ 118 126 ...................... 126 126 ...................... 126 8 ....................OFFICE OF POLICE COMPLAINTS .............................................................. 1,756 2,095 ...................... 2,095 2,095 ...................... 2,095 339 ....................D.C. SENTENCING COMMISSION ............................................................... 581 662 ...................... 662 662 ...................... 662 81 ....................OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER ............................................. 6,762 9,265 ...................... 9,265 9,265 ...................... 9,265 2,503 ....................OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ................................................... 6,647 7,057 (1,164 ) 5,893 7,057 (1,164 ) 5,893 410 ....................CORRECTIONS INFORMATION COUNCIL .................................................... 155 155 ...................... 155 155 ...................... 155 (0 ) ....................CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL ........................................... 1,550 1,576 ...................... 1,576 1,576 ...................... 1,576 26 ....................FORENSICS LABORATORY TECHNICIAN TRAINING PROGRAM ................... 800 800 ...................... 800 800 ...................... 800 ...................... ....................OFFICE OF UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS .................................................... 30,217 31,662 ...................... 31,662 31,662 ...................... 31,662 1,444 ....................EMERGENCY AND DISASTER RESPONSE .................................................. .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................

TOTAL, PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE ......................................... 808,553 846,479 (8,864 ) 837,615 846,479 (8,864 ) 837,615 37,926 ....................

PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity Approved fis- cal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 request Intra-District Fiscal year 2006 less Intra-district Committee recommenda- tion Intra-District Committee recommenda- tion Bill compared with— Fiscal year 2005 approved Fiscal year 2006 request 

D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS ............................................................................. 962,496 1,033,194 (54,157 ) 979,037 1,033,194 (54,157 ) 979,037 70,699 ....................TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT FUND ................................................................ 9,200 15,500 ...................... 15,500 15,500 ...................... 15,500 6,300 ....................STATE EDUCATION OFFICE ....................................................................... 82,388 78,449 ...................... 78,449 78,449 ...................... 78,449 (3,939 ) ....................D.C. PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS ............................................................. 196,802 239,284 ...................... 239,284 239,284 ...................... 239,284 42,483 ....................UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA .......................................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBSIDY ........................... 49,602 57,873 ...................... 57,873 57,873 ...................... 57,873 8,270 ....................D.C. PUBLIC LIBRARY .............................................................................. 32,402 34,473 (320 ) 34,153 34,473 (320 ) 34,153 2,071 ....................COMMISSION ON ARTS & HUMANITIES .................................................... 5,357 .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... (5,357 ) ....................DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EDUCATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND ..................... .................... 21,000 ...................... 21,000 21,000 ...................... 21,000 21,000 ....................DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARTER SCHOOLS INVESTMENT FUND ........... .................... 4,200 ...................... 4,200 4,200 ...................... 4,200 4,200 ....................

TOTAL, PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM .......................................... 1,338,246 1,483,973 (54,477 ) 1,429,496 1,483,973 (54,477 ) 1,429,496 145,727 ....................
38 

HUMAN SUPPORT SERVICES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity Approved fis- cal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 request Intra-District Fiscal year 2006 less Intra-district Committee recommenda- tion Intra-District Committee recommenda- tion Bill compared with— Fiscal year 2005 approved Fiscal year 2006 request 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ........................................................ 442,380 414,015 (198 ) 413,817 414,015 (198 ) 413,817 (28,365 ) ....................CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY ................................................... 220,802 236,762 (44,284 ) 192,478 236,762 (44,284 ) 192,478 15,960 ....................DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ........................................................... 208,506 229,545 (42,917 ) 186,628 229,545 (42,917 ) 186,628 21,038 ....................DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ......................................................................... 1,637,183 1,729,326 (8,842 ) 1,720,484 1,729,326 (8,842 ) 1,720,484 92,143 ....................DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ............................................. 43,971 51,340 (7,450 ) 43,890 51,340 (7,450 ) 43,890 7,369 ....................OFFICE ON AGING ..................................................................................... 21,133 21,415 (225 ) 21,190 21,415 (225 ) 21,190 282 ....................PBC TRANSITION ...................................................................................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND ................................................... 8,124 7,124 ...................... 7,124 7,124 ...................... 7,124 (1,000 ) ....................DISABILITY COMPENSATION FUND ............................................................ 29,600 30,281 ...................... 30,281 30,281 ...................... 30,281 681 ....................OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ...................................................................... 2,514 5,032 ...................... 5,032 5,032 ...................... 5,032 2,518 ....................OFFICE ON LATINO AFFAIRS ..................................................................... 4,462 4,485 (830 ) 3,655 4,485 (830 ) 3,655 22 ....................D.C. ENERGY OFFICE ................................................................................ 17,839 21,147 (326 ) 20,820 21,147 (326 ) 20,820 3,308 ....................CHILDREN AND YOUTH INVESTMENT FUND .............................................. 5,068 8,068 ...................... 8,068 8,068 ...................... 8,068 3,000 ....................BROWNFIELD REMEDIATION ..................................................................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AFFAIRS ................................................... 353 540 ...................... 540 540 ...................... 540 186 ....................OFFICE OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ................................................................ 239 251 ...................... 251 251 ...................... 251 12 ....................MEDICAID RESERVE ................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................INCENTIVES FOR ADOPTION OF CHILDREN .............................................. .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH REHABILITATION SERVICES .............................. .................... 61,327 (2,237 ) 59,090 61,327 (2,237 ) 59,090 61,327 ....................

TOTAL HUMAN SUPPORT SERVICES ............................................ 2,642,174 2,820,657 (107,308 ) 2,713,349 2,820,657 (107,308 ) 2,713,349 178,482 ....................

PUBLIC WORKS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity Approved fis- cal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 request Intra-District Fiscal year 2006 less Intra-district Committee recommenda- tion Intra-District Committee recommenda- tion Bill compared with— Fiscal year 2005 approved Fiscal year 2006 request 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ............................................................. 105,220 115,530 (20,488 ) 95,043 115,530 (20,488 ) 95,043 10,310 ....................DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ......................................................... 31,579 39,005 (214 ) 38,791 39,005 (214 ) 38,791 7,426 ....................
39 

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ......................................................... 40,790 46,530 (162 ) 46,369 46,530 (162 ) 46,369 5,740 ....................D.C. TAXI CAB COMMISSION .................................................................... 1,258 1,362 ...................... 1,362 1,362 ...................... 1,362 104 ....................WASHINGTON METRO AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION ................................. 95 110 ...................... 110 110 ...................... 110 15 ....................WASHINGTON METRO AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY .................................... 166,633 187,632 ...................... 187,632 187,632 ...................... 187,632 20,999 ....................SCHOOL TRANSIT SUBSIDY ...................................................................... 4,670 5,169 ...................... 5,169 5,169 ...................... 5,169 499 ....................

TOTAL, PUBLIC WORKS ............................................................... 350,245 395,339 (20,863 ) 374,476 395,339 (20,863 ) 374,476 45,094 ....................

FINANCING AND OTHER 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity Approved fis- cal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 request Intra-District Fiscal year 2006 less Intra-district Committee recommenda- tion Intra-District Committee recommenda- tion Bill compared with— Fiscal year 2005 approved Fiscal year 2006 request 

RESERVE .................................................................................................. .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................REPAYMENT OF LOANS AND INTEREST .................................................... 347,700 370,778 ...................... 370,778 370,778 ...................... 370,778 23,078 ....................REPAYMENT OF GENERAL FUND DEFICIT ................................................. .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................SHORT-TERM BORROWINGS ..................................................................... 4,000 5,500 ...................... 5,500 5,500 ...................... 5,500 1,500 ....................INAUGURAL EXPENSES ............................................................................. .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION ............................................................ 15,252 15,000 (4,000 ) 11,000 15,000 (4,000 ) 11,000 (252 ) ....................SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS ............................................................... 20,270 20,655 ...................... 20,655 20,655 ...................... 20,655 385 ....................WILSON BUILDING .................................................................................... 3,633 3,740 ...................... 3,740 3,740 ...................... 3,740 107 ....................WORKFORCE INVESTMENTS ...................................................................... 38,114 61,110 ...................... 61,110 61,110 ...................... 61,110 22,996 ....................TOBACCO TRUST FUND ............................................................................ .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................NON-DEPARTMENTAL ................................................................................ 13,946 36,286 ...................... 36,286 36,286 ...................... 36,286 22,340 ....................EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SECURITY FUND ......................................... 14,880 .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... (14,880 ) ....................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 ................................................................ 23,109 35,441 (8,000 ) 27,441 35,441 (8,000 ) 27,441 12,332 ....................EMERGENCY AND CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUNDS ................................. .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................PAY-GO CONTINGENCY ............................................................................. 43,137 .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... (43,137 ) ....................PAY-GO CAPITAL ....................................................................................... 6,531 260,883 ...................... 260,883 260,883 ...................... 260,883 254,352 ....................DEBT SERVICE—ISSUANCE COSTS .......................................................... .................... 40,000 ...................... 40,000 40,000 ...................... 40,000 40,000 ....................SCHOOLS MODERNIZATION FUND ............................................................. .................... 12,208 ...................... 12,208 12,208 ...................... 12,208 12,208 ....................DISTRICT RETIREE HEALTH CONTRIBUTION ............................................. .................... 138,000 ...................... 138,000 138,000 ...................... 138,000 138,000 ....................
40 

FINANCING AND OTHER—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity Approved fis- cal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 request Intra-District Fiscal year 2006 less Intra-district Committee recommenda- tion Intra-District Committee recommenda- tion Bill compared with— Fiscal year 2005 approved Fiscal year 2006 request 

TOTAL, FINANCING AND OTHER .................................................. 580,572 1,049,600 (12,000 ) 1,037,600 1,049,600 (12,000 ) 1,037,600 469,028 ....................

ENTERPRISE FUNDS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity Approved fis- cal year 2005 Fiscal year 2006 request Intra-District Fiscal year 2006 less Intra-district Committee recommenda- tion Intra-District Committee recommenda- tion Bill compared with— Fiscal year 2005 approved Fiscal year 2006 request 

WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY ............................................................... 287,206 295,710 ...................... 295,710 295,710 ...................... 295,710 8,504 ....................WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT .......................................................................... 47,972 50,512 ...................... 50,512 50,512 ...................... 50,512 2,540 ....................STORM WATER .......................................................................................... 3,792 6,673 ...................... 6,673 6,673 ...................... 6,673 2,881 ....................D.C. LOTTERY & CHARITABLE GAMES CONTROL BOARD ......................... 247,000 251,000 ...................... 251,000 251,000 ...................... 251,000 4,000 ....................SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT COMMISSION ........................................... 7,322 339,630 ...................... 339,630 339,630 ...................... 339,630 332,308 ....................D.C. RETIREMENT BOARD ........................................................................ 15,277 30,078 ...................... 30,078 30,078 ...................... 30,078 14,801 ....................CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES .................................................................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ...................... ....................WASHINGTON CONVENTION CENTER AUTHORITY ..................................... 77,176 78,900 ...................... 78,900 78,900 ...................... 78,900 1,724 ....................NATIONAL CAPITAL REVITALIZATION CORPORATION ................................. 7,849 52,731 ...................... 52,731 52,731 ...................... 52,731 44,882 ....................UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA .......................................... 90,575 102,200 (5,730 ) 96,470 102,200 (5,730 ) 96,470 11,625 ....................D.C. OFFICE OF PERSONAL AGENCY TRUST FUND ................................... 953 1,100 ...................... 1,100 1,100 ...................... 1,100 147 ....................D.C. PUBLIC LIBRARY TRUST FUNDS ....................................................... 17 17 ...................... 17 17 ...................... 17 ...................... ....................UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND ................................................... 180,000 180,000 ...................... 180,000 180,000 ...................... 180,000 ...................... ....................

TOTAL, ENTERPRISE FUNDS ........................................................ 965,140 1,388,551 (5,730 ) 1,382,821 1,388,551 (5,730 ) 1,382,821 423,411 ....................
(41) 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Committee has modified section 104 and section 105 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 117 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 (sec. 127) that allows the 

District, based upon revenue certified by the District’s Chief Financial Officer, to increase by 25 percent, the amount appropriated for 

non-tax revenues or ‘‘Other-Type’’ funds and to increase by 6 percent the amount appropriated from all other fund sources within 

the District’s operating budget. The language retains congressional 

oversight by requiring notification to the committees prior to the 

expenditure of any increased amount. 

The Committee has included language (sec. 128) that would 

allow the District to borrow from its emergency and contingency reserve funds for cash flow management purposes. Among other restrictions, the provision allows for borrowing only when the amount 

in each fund is above 50 percent and then only to the extent that 

such borrowing does not deplete the fund below a 50 percent 

threshold. In addition, the provision requires the District to replenish any funds borrowed within 9 months or by the end of the fiscal 

year, whichever occurs earlier. 

The Committee has included language (sec. 131) that conveys 15 

acres of Federal Park Service land to the District of Columbia to 

be used for educational purposes. This conveyance of title for educational purposes reflects the mutual interest of the Committee 

and the District of Columbia to provide a suitable campus environment for a public boarding school to prepare more District students 

for success in college and the professional world. The Committee 

joins with District leaders in supporting public boarding school as 

a critical component of the District’s education portfolio and an important contribution to national education reform. In addition, the 

Committee fully supports and encourages the District’s commitment to collaborating closely with a community organization to develop the plan for a boarding school on the described land. 

The Committee expects that the lease will be executed not later 

than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection; will 

lease the described land without consideration to a non-profit District of Columbia corporation to develop, manage, and administer 

a boarding school for the public welfare; will be for a long term, 
42 

and shall provide for a renewal of the initial term; and will be assignable by the lessee for the purpose of securing indebtedness of 

the lessee, except that any successor in interest to the lessee shall 

utilize the property for an educational institution for the public 

welfare. 

The Committee bill includes provisions (sec. 132 and sec. 133) 

that extend through fiscal year 2006, the authority of the Office of 

the Chief Financial Officer [OCFO] over personnel, procurement, 

and the preparation of fiscal impact statements. The intent of the 

Committee is to exempt all aspects of the OCFO’s contracting and 

procurement from the District of Columbia’s Procurement Practices 

Act and to extend the OCFO’s independent personnel authority and 

its authority to prepare fiscal impact statements during the post 

control board period. 

The Committee bill includes language (sec. 134 and sec. 135) to 

ensure that annuitants retired from the Secret Service are entitled 

to receive appropriate annual pay increases. 

The bill contains a provision (sec. 137) to authorize the District 

to establish a separate title for the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation from funds currently appropriated under the Economic Development title in the District’s fiscal year 2006 appropriation. This 

provision does not increase the District’s overall appropriation request. 
(43) 

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 2006 which lack authorization are as follows: 

Federal payment for emergency planning and security costs in the District of Columbia ................................... $12,000,000 

Federal payment for the Water and Sewer Authority .............................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Federal payment for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative ........................................................................................ 3,000,000 

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 Officer ............................................................................... 16,500,000 

Federal payment for bioterrorism and forensics lab ............................................................................................... 5,200,000 

Federal payment for the National Guard Youth Challenge Program ...................................................................... 500,000 

Federal payment for marriage development ............................................................................................................ 3,000,000 

Federal payment for Latino Youth Initiative ............................................................................................................ 2,000,000 

Federal payment for prisoner reentrant housing ..................................................................................................... 3,000,000 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 21, 2005, the 

Committee ordered reported, en bloc S. 1446, an original bill making appropriations for 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, 2006, and for other purposes, H.R. 2528, making appropriations for Military Construction 

and Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title; 

and H.R.3058, making appropriations for the Departments of 

Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2006, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute, provided that the bill be subject to further amendment and the bill be consistent with its budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 28–0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran 

Mr. Stevens 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Domenici 

Mr. Bond 
44 

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.’’ 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 3. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. 

SUBTITLE I 

GENERAL. 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 3 

Armory Board. 

* * * * * * * 
45 

SUBCHAPTER II. ROBERT F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL STADIUM. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3–326. Title to Stadium to vest in United States; date; conveyance and 

lease to District of Columbia; non-transferability; uses of property; reversion for noncompliance. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1) The instrument of conveyance and the lease referred to 

in subsection (c) of this section shall provide that all right, title, 

and interest conveyed to the District of Columbia pursuant to such 

instrument of conveyance shall revert to the United States and the 

lease shall terminate if: 

* * * * * * * 

(4) Any property which reverts to the Secretary under this subsection shall be administered by the Secretary as part of the Park 

System of the Nation’s Capital in accordance with the provisions of 

the Act of August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2–4), and other provisions of the law generally applicable to units of the national park 

system. 

(e)(1) Upon receipt of a written description from the District of 

Columbia of not more than 15 contiguous acres (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘the 15 acres’’), with the longest side of the 15 acres abutting 

one of the roads bounding the property, within the area designated 

‘‘D’’ on the revised map entitled ‘‘Map to Designate Transfer of Stadium and Lease of Parking Lots to the District’’ and bound by Oklahoma Avenue, NE, Benning Road, NE, the Metro line, and C Street, 

NE, and execution of a long-term lease that is contingent up the 

Secretary’s conveyance of the 15 acres and for the purpose consistent 

with this paragraph, the Secretary shall convey the 15 acres described land to the District of Columbia for the purpose of siting, 

developing, and operating an educational institution for the public 

welfare, with first preference given to a pre-collegiate public boarding school. 

(2) Upon conveyance, the portion of the stadium lease that affects the15 acres on the property and all the conditions associated 

therewith shall terminate, and the 15 acres property shall be removed from the ‘‘Map to Designate Transfer of Stadium and Lease 

of Parking Lots to the District’’, and the long-term lease described 

in paragraph (1) shall take effect immediately. 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 5 

POLICE, FIREFIGHTERS, AND CHIEF MEDICAL 

EXAMINER 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 7 

Police and Firefighters Retirement and Disability. 

* * * * * * * 
46 

SUBCHAPTER I. RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY, 1916. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 5–745. Pension relief allowance or retirement compensation increase. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(e) This section shall not apply with respect to officers and 

members of the Metropolitan Police force or the Fire Department 

of the District of Columbia who retire after the effective date of 

this subsection. 

(f) This section shall not apply with respect to any annuitant 

retired from the United States Secret Service Division, other than 

an annuitant retired from the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division. 

§ 5–745A. Annuity Increase for United States Secret Service Division. 

(a) Each annuitant retired from the United States Secret Service Division, other than an annuitant retired from the United States 

Secret Service Uniformed Division, shall be entitled to receive an increase annually equal to the General Schedule overall average pay 

increase that is effective in accordance with title 5 of the United 

States Code, section 5303. 

(b) In the event that an annuity increase cannot be determined 

under subsection (a) because title 5 of the United States Code, section 5303, is superseded or nullified, then each annuitant retired 

from the United States Secret Service Division, other than an annuitant retired from the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division, shall be entitled to receive an increase annually under the provisions of title 5 of the District of Columbia Code, section 5–718 (c– 

1) and (c–2). 

* * * * * * * 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005, 

PUBLIC LAW 108–335 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—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, 2006; 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: Provided, That of the $13,000,000 
47 

for the District of Columbia Public Schools, not less than 

$2,000,000 shall be for a new incentive fund to reward high performing or significantly improved public schools; not less than 

$2,000,000 shall be to support the Transformation School Initiative 

directed to schools in need of improvement: Provided further, That 

of the remaining amounts, the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools shall use such sums as necessary to provide 

grants to schools which are not eligible for other programs referenced under this heading, and to contract for management consulting services and implement recommended reforms: Provided 

further, That the Comptroller General shall conduct a financial 

audit of the District of Columbia Public Schools: Provided further, 

That of the $13,000,000 provided for public charter schools in the 

District of Columbia, $2,000,000 shall be for the City Build Initiative to create neighborhood-based charter schools; $2,750,000 shall 

be for the Direct Loan Fund for Charter Schools; $150,000 shall be 

for administrative expenses of the Office of Charter School Financing and Support to expand outreach and support of charter schools; 

$100,000 shall be for the D.C. Public Charter School Association to 

enhance the quality of charter schools; ø$4,000,000¿ $4,000,000, to 

remain available until expended, shall be for the development of an 

incubator facility for public charter schools; $2,000,000 shall be for 

a charter school college preparatory program; and ø$2,000,000 

shall be for a new incentive fund¿ $2,000,000, to remain available 

until expended, shall be for a new incentive fund to reward high 

performing or significantly improved public charter schools: Provided further, That the District of Columbia government shall establish a dedicated account for the Office of Charter School Financing and Support (the Office) that shall consist of the Federal funds 

appropriated in this Act, any subsequent appropriations, any unobligated balances from prior fiscal years, any additional grants, and 

any interest and principal derived from loans made to Charter 

Schools, and repayment of dollars utilized to support credit enhancement earned in this or any fiscal year: Provided further, That 

the account shall be under the control of the District of Columbia 

Chief Financial Officer who shall use those funds solely for the purposes of carrying out the Credit Enhancement Program, Direct 

Loan Fund Grant Program, and any other charter school financing 

under the management of the Office: Provided further, That in this 

and subsequent fiscal years the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

shall conduct an annual audit of the funds expended by the Office 

and provide an annual financial report to the Mayor, the Council 

of the District of Columbia, the Office of the District of Columbia 

Treasurer and the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 

Representatives and Senate for these funds showing, by object 

class, the expenditures made and the purpose therefor: Provided 

further, That not more than $250,000 of the total amount appropriated for this program may be used for administrative expenses 

and training expenses related to the cost of the National Charter 

School Conference(s) to be hosted by December 2006; and no more 

than 5 percent of the funds appropriated for the direct loan fund 

may be used for administrative expenses related to the administra-
48 

tion and annual audit of the direct loan, grant, and credit enhancement programs. 

* * * * * * * 

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 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 2006: Subcommittee on the District of Columbia: 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 593 593 581 1 580 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2006 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 509 

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 56 

2008 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 18 

2009 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 10 

2010 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2006 ......................................................................................... NA 392 NA 366 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
49 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance 1 Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with 

(∂ or ¥) 

2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 1

TITLE I 

FEDERAL FUNDS 

Federal payment for Resident Tuition Support ...................................................... 25,395 33,200 33,200 33,200 ∂7,805 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the District of 

Columbia ............................................................................................................ 14,880 15,000 15,000 12,000 ¥2,880 ¥3,000 ¥3,000 

Federal payment to the District of Columbia Courts ............................................ 189,274 221,693 221,693 218,912 ∂29,638 ¥2,781 ¥2,781 Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts ................................................ 38,192 45,000 45,000 45,000 ∂6,808 .......................... ..........................Federal payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the 

District of Columbia .......................................................................................... 178,560 203,388 203,388 201,388 ∂22,828 ¥2,000 ¥2,000 

Federal payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority ........... 4,762 .......................... 10,000 5,000 ∂238 ∂5,000 ¥5,000 Federal payment for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative 2 .................................... 2,976 5,000 5,000 3,000 ∂24 ¥2,000 ¥2,000 Federal payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council ........................... 1,290 1,300 1,300 1,300 ∂10 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for the Unified Communications Center .................................... 5,952 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,952 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for Public School Libraries ......................................................... 5,952 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,952 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for the Family Literacy Program ................................................ 992 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥992 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for Transportation Assistance .................................................... 2,480 .......................... .......................... 1,000 ¥1,480 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Federal payment for Foster Care Improvements ................................................... 4,960 .......................... .......................... 2,000 ¥2,960 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 Federal payment to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of 

Columbia ............................................................................................................ 32,240 .......................... 20,000 16,500 ¥15,740 ∂16,500 ¥3,500 

Federal payment for School Improvement ............................................................. 39,680 41,616 41,616 40,000 ∂320 ¥1,616 ¥1,616 Federal payment for Bioterrorism and Forensics Labs ......................................... 7,936 7,200 7,200 5,200 ¥2,736 ¥2,000 ¥2,000 Federal payment for the National Guard Youth Challenge in the District of Columbia ................................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... .......................... 500 ∂500 ∂500 ∂500 Federal payment for Marriage Development Accounts .......................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 3,000 ∂3,000 ∂3,000 ∂3,000 Federal payment for Latino youth Initiative .......................................................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 Federal payment for Prisoner Reentrant Housing ................................................. .......................... .......................... .......................... 3,000 ∂3,000 ∂3,000 ∂3,000 

Total, Federal funds to the District of Columbia .................................... 555,521 573,397 603,397 593,000 ∂37,479 ∂19,603 ¥10,397 
50 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2005 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance 1 Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with 

(∂ or ¥) 

2005 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 1

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS 

Operating Expenses 

Operating expenses ................................................................................................ (7,168,491 ) (8,700,158 ) (8,700,158 ) (8,700,158 ) (∂1,531,667 ) .......................... ..........................

Total, District of Columbia funds ............................................................ (7,168,491 ) (8,700,158 ) (8,700,158 ) (8,700,158 ) (∂1,531,667 ) .......................... ..........................Grand total: 

Federal Funds to the District of Columbia ..................................... 555,521 573,397 603,397 593,000 ∂37,479 ∂19,603 ¥10,397 District of Columbia funds .............................................................. (7,168,491 ) (8,700,158 ) (8,700,158 ) (8,700,158 ) (∂1,531,667 ) .......................... ..........................

1 H.R. 3058. 2 Funds are for the Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail construction. 

Æ