28–603 PDF 

Calendar No. 517 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 109–281 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007 

JULY 13, 2006.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BROWNBACK, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3660] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3660) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia 

and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 

and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends 

that the bill do pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2007 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $597,000,000 

Amount of 2006 appropriations ............................... 596,970,000 

Amount of 2007 budget estimate ............................ 597,200,000 

Amount of House allowance .................................... 575,200,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2006 appropriations .......................................... ∂30,000 

2007 budget estimate ........................................ ¥200,000 

House allowance ................................................ ∂21,800,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

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

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

General Provisions ................................................................................................... 42 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 44 

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

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

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 45 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 46 
(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. 5576. The Committee believes that 

it is appropriate to fund these items in this bill. For ease of comparison, the Committee report sets forth a ‘‘House allowance’’ as if 

these items had been contained in this bill. These items were contained in the Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2007 (H.R. 5576), as passed the House, but were not considered or 

contained in the Committee recommendation to the Senate on that 

bill. 

FEDERAL FUNDS

The Committee considered requests from the President for Federal funds totaling $597,200,000 in budget authority for the District of Columbia appropriation. The Committee recommendation is 

$597,000,000 and is appropriated as follows: (1) $33,200,000 for 

District of Columbia resident tuition support; (2) $206,629,000 for 

the District of Columbia Courts; (3) $43,475,000 for Defender Services in the District of Columbia Courts; (4) $183,653,000 for the 

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of 

Columbia; (5) $32,710,000 for the Public Defender Service in the 

District of Columbia; (6) $8,533,000 for security costs related to the 

presence of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia; (7) 

$1,000,000 for transportation assistance; (8) $7,000,000 for the 

combined sewer overflow; (9) $5,000,000 for security, economic development, education and health projects; (10) $5,000,000 for support of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative; (11) $40,000,000 for 

school improvement; (12) $2,000,000 for foster care improvements; 

(13) $4,500,000 for a new bioterrorism and forensics laboratory; 

(14) $4,000,000 for Marriage Development Accounts and marriage 

promotion; (15) $4,000,000 for improvements to the Navy Yard 

Metro Station; and (16) $15,000,000 for a new central library in the 

District of Columbia. 

TOTAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE

Based on recommendations in the bill, a total of $9,057,361,000 

will be available to the District of Columbia government during fiscal year 2007. Included in this figure are appropriations from local 

funds, Federal grants, Federal payments, and private and other 

funds. The financing of the appropriations from District funds are 
4 

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) encouraging literacy through 

the establishment of a new state-of-the-art central library; and (3) 

enhancing transitional housing opportunities for successful ex-offender reentry to the community. 

Promoting Healthy Marriages 

The Committee understands that most children born and raised 

in households where their biological parents are married are more 

financially and emotionally stable. Given the enormous benefits 

that accrue to children who are raised by their married parents, 

the Committee believes that it is a moral and societal imperative 

that our nation esteem, support, foster, and encourage the institution of marriage. 

The Committee is pleased to announce that the Mayor of the District of Columbia will take important actions to encourage marriage 

in the District of Columbia. These actions include: (1) eliminating 

marriage penalties for low-income couples who decide to wed; (2) 

increasing the earned income tax credit for married couples in the 

District; and (3) assigning priority status to married couples and 

their families for low-income and federally funded housing. The 

Committee is also providing $1,000,000 to the District of Columbia 

Department of Human Services to support occupational training for 

married parents to improve their prospects for full-time employment. 

As a way to assist low-income married couples to save money to 

pay for job training or education, buy a home or start their own 

business, the Committee began providing funds to establish ‘‘Marriage Development Accounts’’ [MDAs] in the District of Columbia 

last fiscal year. MDAs are available to married couples who are 

citizens or legal residents of the District of Columbia whose Federal adjusted gross income does not exceed 300 percent of Federal 

poverty level and whose net worth is less than $10,000. 

Participating couples have a high incentive to save because their 

contributions will be matched at a ratio of 3:1 by the Federal Government and partnering private institutions. As a requirement of 

participation, couples receive training that helps them repair their 

credit, set a budget and savings schedule, and manage their money. 

The Committee is pleased with the interest in MDAs and is providing funds to continue the program during this fiscal year. 

Recognizing the importance of grassroots support to ensure the 

success of these efforts, the Committee is directing that grantees 

use a portion of these funds to expand their network of service providers by partnering with local churches, faith-based organizations, 
6 

and non-profit organizations. These service providers will offer life 

skills training and marital and pre-marital counseling. 

Promoting Literacy 

The Committee is troubled that the adult illiteracy rate in the 

District of Columbia is 37 percent, and notes that the rate is much 

higher in predominantly lower-income communities. 

The Committee supports Mayor Anthony Williams’ vision of a 

new state-of-the art central library in the District of Columbia. The 

Mayor has said that libraries are a key foundation of our communities. They are anchors for children who are learning to read; resource hubs for people wishing to complete an education or earn a 

GED; places of literary inspiration for future writers or those with 

a natural love for reading; places to access and explore the Internet; and knowledge centers for anyone wishing to pursue their hobbies or dreams. 

According to the Mayor, the District of Columbia central library 

has been neglected for decades and is now in a state of disrepair. 

Because of this, there is a significant and urgent need for a new 

library. Therefore, the Committee is providing $15,000,000 as a 

Federal contribution for a new library, recognizing that the lion’s 

share of the funds—approximately $170,000,000 will come from 

local funds. The Committee is informed that the site of the new 

central library will be at the location of the old convention center. 

The Committee agrees with the Mayor that a new library system 

will serve as a gateway to learning and be a valuable asset for the 

city. The benefits are clear. A state-of-the-art library system would 

give all District residents access to the latest books and technology, 

meeting and quiet rooms, enhanced special collections, and valuable programming for adults and children, including literacy and 

lifelong learning workshops. 

By creating a 21st century library in the Nation’s capital with innovative programming and state-of-the-art technology, the new 

central library will be recognized as a national model setting the 

standard for library systems around the country. The President 

agrees that a new central library is urgently needed and has requested funding for this effort. 

Reducing Prisoner Recidivism 

The Committee is aware that every year 2,500 former prisoners 

return home to the District. These returning offenders are assigned 

to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for release 

plan investigations during their parole or probation terms. Those 

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

houses where their stays are capped at 120 days. 

The Committee strongly believes that reducing the likelihood of 

homelessness for those exiting the halfway house system is critical 

to combating recidivism among returning prisoners. Therefore, the 

Committee has provided funds to increase the amount of transitional housing for returning offenders. 

The Committee also believes that mentors can help ex-offenders 

better reintegrate into their communities by providing them with 

the emotional, psychological, spiritual, and motivational support 

they need. Mentors can help ex-offenders find employment, make 
7 

sure that they attend counseling sessions, and encourage them to 

reconcile with family members. 

Financial Condition of the District of Columbia 

The Committee commends the Mayor, the City Council, and the 

Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia in improving its 

bond rating from the junk bond status of the mid-1990’s to investment grade status every year since February 2001. The Committee 

notes that Wall Street bond rating agencies have upgraded the 

city’s rating to A. This accomplishment is due in large part to three 

factors: (1) consistent trends of increased financial reserves, (2) 

stringent budget monitoring and controls in the 3 fiscal years following elimination of the control board, and (3) growth in taxable 

assessed values. 

D.C. Water and Sewer Authority [WASA].—The Congress is 

aware of a conflict between the statutes authorizing the independent financial oversight authority of the D.C. Chief Financial 

Officer [CFO] and the WASA Establishment and Reorganization 

Act of 1996 and is examining the necessary legislative actions. The 

Committee will work with the appropriate authorizing committees 

and the District to develop permanent legislation governing 

WASA’s financial management and accountability. 

Kenilworth Park.—The Committee directs the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia to provide quarterly financial reports on obligations and expenditures of all funds provided for improvements at Kenilworth Park in the District of Columbia in the 

District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 (Public 

Law 107–96; 115 Stat. 929) and the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003 (Public Law 108–7; 117 Stat. 112). 

The Committee expects these funds to be used to create a regional 

youth recreation park and urges the Mayor to expedite improvements at the park to benefit the community. 

Historic Preservation in the District of Columbia 

The Committee urges the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office to consider funding applications for construction and 

renovation projects for non-governmental historic sites on the National Mall. 
(8) 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FEDERAL FUNDS

A total of $597,000,000 in Federal funds are estimated to be 

available to the District of Columbia government, the District of 

Columbia Courts, the District of Columbia Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, and other D.C. entities. A total of 

$2,020,101,000 in Federal funds will be received by the District 

government from the various Federal grant programs. In addition, 

the District of Columbia receives Federal reimbursements from 

such programs as Medicaid and Medicare. 

The following table summarizes the various Federal funds estimated to be available to the District government during fiscal year 

2007: 

FEDERAL FUNDS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2007 estimate 

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

Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs ....................................................................... 8,533 

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts ...................................................................................... 206,629 

Federal Payment for Defender Services ........................................................................................................... 43,475 

Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency .................................................... 183,653 

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority ..................................................... 7,000

Federal Payment for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative ................................................................................ 5,000 

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 .............................................................................................. 5,000 

Federal Payment for a Forensics Lab .............................................................................................................. 4,500 

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

Federal Payment for Marriage Development and Improvement ...................................................................... 4,000 

Total, Federal funds in bill ................................................................................................................ 597,000 

Federal Grants .................................................................................................................................................. 2,020,101 

Total, Federal Funds ........................................................................................................................... 2,617,101 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENT TUITION

SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $32,868,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 35,100,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 35,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,200,000 

The Committee recommends $33,200,000 in Federal funds for the 

District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program, an increase of 

$332,000 over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and $1,900,000 

below the President’s budget request. On November 12, 1999, Public Law 106–98, the District of Columbia College Access Act of 

1999, was signed into law. The Act established the Tuition Assist-
9 

ance Program, a grant program under the direction of the Mayor 

of the District of Columbia, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Education. 

Under the Act, grants are awarded to District residents for undergraduate education within 3 years of graduating or obtaining a 

graduate equivalent degree. The applicant must be a District resident for 12 consecutive months before the academic year of the 

award. Grants pay the difference between in-State and out-of-State 

tuition at public universities, with a cap of $10,000 per student per 

school year, and a total cap of $50,000. Grants may also be used 

for tuition at private colleges in the metropolitan area and at any 

private historically black college or university, with a cap of $2,500 

per student per year, and a total cap of $12,500. In addition, the 

District of Columbia College Access Improvement Act of 2001 (Public Law 107–157) expanded the Tuition Assistance Program to individuals who enroll in an institution of higher education more than 

3 years after graduating from a secondary school and to individuals 

who attend private, historically black colleges and universities nationwide. 

Every year since the inception of the tuition assistance grant program, the Federal Government has provided sufficient funds to 

allow all eligible participants to attend out-of-State colleges and 

universities at the in-State tuition rate. The Committee is pleased 

to note that 55 percent of all participants are the first members of 

their families to attend college and that 75 percent of students surveyed at one of the largest schools in the city said that the program 

influenced their decision to pursue postsecondary education. Clearly, the program is working well and more and more District students are gaining the opportunity to attend colleges and universities of their choice. 

The Committee recognizes that this program has enabled many 

District of Columbia residents to pursue post-secondary educational 

opportunities. The program allows the District to provide similar 

opportunities to D.C. residents that State-level university systems 

provide in all States. 

The Committee remains concerned that the significant annual 

funding increases in a brief 2-year span signal that program costs 

have the potential of growing well beyond the level at which future 

Federal funding may be available and sustainable. To address this 

concern, the Committee directs the Mayor and the District’s State 

Education Office officials to work closely with its Senate and House 

authorizing and appropriations Committees to immediately take 

steps to institute effective cost containment measures and regularly 

report to Congress about the effects of these efforts. The Committee 

further directs the District to fully explore non-Federal sources of 

additional funds to augment the Federal investment to meet program needs. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $216,723,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 196,629,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 219,629,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 206,629,000 
10 

The Committee recommends $206,629,000 for the District of Columbia Courts. This is $10,094,000 less than the fiscal year 2006 

enacted level and $10,000,000 above the President’s budget request. As part of the District of Columbia Revitalization Act of 

1997, the Federal Government began to finance the D.C. Courts. 

This includes funding for the operations of the D.C. Court of Appeals, Superior Court, and the Court System. By law, the annual 

budget includes estimates of the expenditures for the operations of 

the Courts prepared by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration and the President’s recommendation for funding the Courts’ 

operations. 

Court Operations 

The Committee recommends $158,700,000 for the Courts’ oper- ations, $2,348,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level and the 

same as the President’s request. 

Court Capital Expenditures 

The Committee recommends $60,929,000 for capital improve- ments, a total of $10,600,000 above the President’s budget request 

and $19,800,000 below the fiscal year 2006 level. 

The increased funds for capital expenditures will allow the 

Courts to continue to renovate, improve, and expand court facilities. The Committee recognizes that the relocation of the Court of 

Appeals from its existing location in the Moultrie Courthouse to 

the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue is a critical step towards meeting the space needs of the D.C. Court of Appeals and 

providing critical additional space for Superior Court operations, 

including the newly formed Family Court in the Moultrie Building. 

The Committee understands that the readaptation of the Old 

Courthouse for modern day use as a functional courthouse includes 

the restoration of this national historic landmark, expansion of the 

courthouse, and construction of an underground parking garage 

west of the historic building. 

This increase will also enable the Courts to continue implementation of the Integrated Justice Information System [IJIS] and 

allow the Courts to upgrade fire and security alarm systems. 

Transfer Authority 

The Committee authorizes the Courts to transfer up to 

$1,000,000 of the operations funds provided in the Federal Payment to the D.C. Courts among the accounts within the Federal 

Payment to the District of Columbia Courts appropriation. This 

flexibility will be especially important in implementing Family 

Court reforms. The Committee authorizes the Courts to transfer up 

to 4 percent of the capital funds provided. This flexibility will enable the Courts to prioritize renovations and construction projects. 

Reporting Requirements 

The Courts are directed to submit monthly reports, through the 

General Services Administration, to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, within 15 calendar days after the end 

of each month, on the status of obligations by object class and a 

monthly personnel summary by position, full-time equivalent posi-
11 

tions, and program/function. The obligation report should show, at 

a minimum, the original operating plan, current operating plan, obligations year to date, percent obligated, planned obligations year 

to date, percentage deviation from plan year to date, projected total 

obligations end of year, and projected surplus/deficit. 

In addition, the obligation report shall: (1) include a breakdown 

of expenditures for the Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect Program and the program of representation of indigents in criminal 

cases; (2) include a monthly breakdown of expenditures for the D.C. 

Courts’ capital improvements; and (3) where year-to-date obligations exceed or fall below the plan estimates by 1 percent or more, 

include an explanation of why a category is over- or under-budgeted. 

Financial Plan.—The Executive Officer of the District of Columbia Courts shall provide a financial plan of the fiscal year 2007 enacted level for operations and capital improvements of the D.C. 

Courts to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate no later than March 31, 2007. The financial plan shall detail by object class the planned expenditure of the 

Courts’ appropriation, describing any new initiatives or deviation 

from the conference report. The Committee shall provide a joint 

House-Senate letter of approval to the Courts after review of the 

financial plan. The Courts must provide 30 days notice to the Committee in order to deviate from the financial plan after approval of 

such plan by Congress. 

DEFENDER SERVICES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $43,560,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 43,475,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 43,475,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,475,000 

The Committee recommends $43,475,000 for Defender Services 

in the District of Columbia, which provides for attorneys for indigent defendants, child abuse and guardianship cases administered 

by the D.C. Courts. This is the same as the President’s request and 

$85,000 below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This funding will 

allow D.C. attorneys and investigators to receive the same hourly 

rate as their Federal counterparts. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER

SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $169,839,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 181,653,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 181,653,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 183,653,000 

The Committee recommends $183,653,000 for the Court Services 

and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA]. This recommendation 

is $2,000,000 above the President’s budget request and $13,814,000 

more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The District of Columbia Revitalization Act of 1997 established 

CSOSA, assuming the functions of the District’s pretrial services, 

adult probation, parole, and adult offender supervision functions. 

The mission of CSOSA for the District of Columbia is to increase 

public safety, prevent crime, reduce recidivism, and support the 
12 

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 decisionmaking functions to the U.S. Parole 

Commission [USPC]. On August 5, 1998, the parole determination 

function was transferred to the USPC, and on August 4, 2000, the 

USPC assumed responsibility for parole revocation and modification with respect to felons. The CSOSA appropriation is comprised 

of three components: The Community Supervision Program [CSP], 

the District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency [PSA], and the 

Public Defender Service [PDS] for the District of Columbia. PDS is 

a federally funded independent D.C. agency responsible for the defense of indigent individuals and receives funding by transfer from 

the CSOSA appropriation. The CSP is responsible for supervision 

of offenders (either on probation or parole), and the PSA is responsible for supervising pretrial defendants. 

The Committee understands that the majority of the additional 

funds it is providing will be used to increase the capacity of residential substance abuse treatment for offenders at Karrick Hall 

from 21 to 100 participants. These resources will fund the level of 

treatment slots at the fully authorized level. The Committee recognizes that most offenders have serious drug addiction problems and 

must receive treatment in order to lead productive, crime-free lives. 

The Committee is pleased that CSOSA has made such steady 

progress in increasing the drug treatment capacity for offenders. 

The funding provided will also enable CSOSA to enhance its 

community-based and sanctions-based supervision strategy and 

support the fair administration of justice by providing the courts 

and the U.S. Parole Commission with timely, accurate and complete information required in their decisionmaking process. 

Prison Reentrant Housing Initiative 

The Committee believes strongly that reducing the likelihood of 

homelessness for returning offenders is critical to combating recidivism. Therefore, the Committee intends that the funds provided 

above the President’s request be used to expand the availability of 

transitional housing for ex-offenders. The Committee is aware that 

ex-offenders are faced with rebuilding their lives as they seek to 

join the workforce, support their families and become productive 

members of society. Despite successes in delivery of social and 

health care services, there is a very pressing need for affordable 

housing. Stable housing increases the likelihood that the offender 

will successfully complete his or her term of parole or supervised 

release, find and maintain employment, maintain family relationships, and access the programs and services that contribute to suc-
13 

cessful reentry. CSOSA originally brought this issue to the attention of the D.C. Department of Housing and Community Development [DHCD] in December 2004, noting the direct correlation between stable housing and offenders’ compliance with the conditions 

of community supervision. An important aspect of supervision is 

the offender’s growing awareness of, and participation in, community-based social services; this occurs during the term of supervision and constitutes a critical stage of the reentry process. Currently, the D.C. reentry initiative offers individuals exiting the 

criminal justice system direct services and access to 30 communitybased nonprofit organizations. Unity health care provides health 

services through a clinic designed specifically for reentrants. The 

Department of Employment Services provides job readiness and job 

placement services at its offices, and case workers assist reentrants 

in obtaining GED certification and enrollment in college courses at 

UDC. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $29,535,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 32,710,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 32,710,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,710,000 

The Committee is providing $32,710,000 for the Public Defender 

Service in the District of Columbia, which is the same as the President’s request and $3,175,000 more than the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. 

The mission of the Public Defender Service [PDS] is to provide 

and promote quality legal representation to indigent adults and 

children facing a loss of liberty in the District of Columbia and 

thereby protect society’s interest in the fair administration of justice. The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia enjoys a national reputation for excellence in the delivery of indigent 

defense services and is often cited as a model for other public defender agencies. Beginning in 1960 as the Legal Aid Agency, the 

agency was expanded and the name was changed to the Public Defender Service in 1970. PDS is a Federally funded, independent 

legal organization governed by an 11-member Board of Trustees. In 

previous years, the Committee has provided funds for PDS through 

the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. Beginning 

this year, the Committee is funding PDS as a separate line-item, 

recognizing its status as an independent agency. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR SECURITY

COSTS RELATED TO THE PRESENCE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $13,365,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 8,533,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 8,533,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,533,000 

The Committee is aware that the District police, fire, and emergency personnel have had to provide security for a number of 

events due to the fact that the District of Columbia is the seat of 

the Federal Government and headquarters of many international 

organizations. Recently, the need for the District of Columbia to 
14 

provide security has increased, thereby increasing overtime costs 

for personnel and diverting police from neighborhood patrols. The 

President has supported reimbursing the District for these costs. 

The Committee recommends $8,533,000 for this purpose which is 

the same as the President’s request and $4,832,000 below the fiscal 

year 2006 level. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $28,908,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

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

The Committee is providing $5,000,000 to the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia for education, job-training, security, economic development, and health projects in the District of 

Columbia. The Committee is providing funds for the following 

projects in the following amounts: 

Project Amount 

Children’s National Medical Center for facilities ................................................................................................ $500,000 

Children’s National Medical Center for African-American cord-blood bank ....................................................... 250,000 

D.C. Poison Control Center .................................................................................................................................. 250,000 

Unity Healthcare for medical care tracking technology ...................................................................................... 250,000 

Boys and Girls Clubs of D.C. for facilities repairs ............................................................................................. 200,000 

Father McKenna Homeless Shelter ...................................................................................................................... 100,000 

East of the River Police-Clergy Partnership ........................................................................................................ 200,000 

Youth Leadership Foundation .............................................................................................................................. 200,000 

National Council of La Raza in the District of Columbia ................................................................................... 350,000 

Mary’s Center ....................................................................................................................................................... 200,000 

Gospel Rescue Mission ........................................................................................................................................ 100,000 

Center for Inspired Teaching for teacher training .............................................................................................. 50,000 

CentroNia to expand academic enrichment model for early childhood education ............................................. 100,000

Discovery Creek Children’s Museum of Washington for Its Wise to Immunize Project ...................................... 100,000 

Girl Scout Council of the Nation’s Capital for Young Leaders Program ............................................................ 100,000 

Historic building restoration and renovation ....................................................................................................... 500,000 

Green Door for the Homeless-to-Workplace Initiative ......................................................................................... 100,000 

Kidsave DC Weekend Miracles for a program to support older foster youth ..................................................... 100,000 

KIPP DC: Will Academy Partnership with Scott Montgomery Elementary to support the first charter-DCPS 

partnership ...................................................................................................................................................... 400,000 

National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy for a continuing initiative with UCAN .................................... 100,000 

Southeastern University for facilities capital improvements .............................................................................. 100,000 

Youth baseball partnership with Payne Elementary School ................................................................................ 50,000 

Washington Area Women’s Foundation Stepping Stones Initiative for low-income families ............................. 500,000 

Whitman-Walker Clinic for facility planning and development .......................................................................... 100,000 

Washington Latin Public Charter School for a summer enrichment program ................................................... 50,000

Washington National Opera for education programs only in D.C ....................................................................... 50,000 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR THE ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT INITIATIVE IN

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

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

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 to continue to implement the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative, which is $2,030,000 above the 

fiscal year 2006 enacted level. The President did not request any 

funds for this initiative. These funds will support the construction 

of a multi-use hiker and biker trail system along both sides of the 
15 

Anacostia River in the District of Columbia. This recreational 

amenity and transportation alternative will help connect neighborhoods and transform the Anacostia River into a great civic center 

for the city. The Committee understands that the 20-mile interconnected trail network will provide pedestrian and bicycle-friendly 

access to the shores of the Anacostia River and will serve to connect the regional trail system in Maryland to the National Mall. 

With alternative corridors and loops to choose from, users of the 

trail will find a variety of experiences and connections to other regional and national trails, including Fort Circle Trail, Bladensburg 

Trail, the East Coast Greenway and the Potomac Heritage Scenic 

Trail. 

The Committee continues to support the use of innovative 

bridges along the Anacostia bike trail and urges the District’s Department of Transportation to consider using this new technology 

in other road projects throughout the city. The Committee also intends that $2,000,000 of the funds provided will be used for infrastructure upgrades to revitalize and increase access to the area. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND

SEWER AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $6,930,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 7,000,000 

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

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,000,000 

The Committee is providing $7,000,000, to be matched 100 percent with local funds, for the Water and Sewer Authority [WASA] 

to implement the Combined Sewer Overflow Program. This is 

$70,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2006 

and the same as the President’s request. The Committee notes that 

this funding will assist WASA in designing a new system to address combined sewer overflows. The combined sewer system, 

which serves 33 percent of the District, was constructed in 1890 by 

the Federal Government. Because of its age and capacity 

contraints, the system discharges sanitary waste and storm-water 

into the surrounding rivers approximately 60–75 times per year 

during heavy rains. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR

TRANSPORTATION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $990,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

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

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for transportation assistance in the District of Columbia, which is $10,000 above the fiscal 

year 2006 enacted level. The President did not request funds for 

this purpose. 

The Committee intends that these resources be used for expenses 

related to phase II implementation of the District’s downtown 

circulator transit system. This new surface transportation service 

is providing high-frequency, high-quality, and low-cost service to 

connect the east and west sides of downtown, the White House, the 
16 

National Mall and monuments area, the Capitol Complex, Union 

Station, and Georgetown. The Committee understands that these 

funds will be matched 100 percent by the District of Columbia and 

by the private sector (led by the Downtown Business Improvement 

District group). The Committee understands that Phase I of the 

Circulator is now operating and will include the following routes: 

(1) north-south along 7th Street, NW, between the Convention Center and the SW Waterfront; and (2) east-west between Georgetown 

and Union Station. The Committee directs the District of Columbia 

Department of Transportation to report on progress to minimize 

idling of buses and traffic congestion. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR FOSTER CARE IMPROVEMENT AND POSTADOPTIVE SERVICES

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $1,980,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

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

The Committee understands that in the District of Columbia, the 

Child and Family Services Agency [CFSA] is responsible for protecting approximately 3,000 children in ‘‘out-of-home’’ placements, 

and another 5,000 children in ‘‘in-home’’ placements. During its 

history, many children in CFSA’s care have languished for extended periods of time due to managerial shortcomings and 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. 

Loan Repayment for Social Workers 

The Committee is providing $1,000,000 for the repayment of student loans for social workers at CFSA. The Committee understands 

that the higher the caseload per social worker, the lower the quality of service to each of the caseworker’s children. The District, like 

many cities, suffers from a high turnover rate of social workers. In 

fact, the national turnover rate has doubled since 1991. Clearly, 

the relatively low pay and difficult working conditions of social 

workers has resulted in a child welfare workforce crisis. 

The Committee recognizes that steps must be taken to encourage 

more workers to enter the child welfare workforce and improve the 

salaries, working conditions, and training of workers. Student loan 

repayment is aiding in the retention and improvement of conditions 

for the District’s social workers. 
17 

Post Adoptive Services 

The Committee is providing $750,000 to assist CFSA in providing post permanency services to adoptive parents and guardians 

to ensure that children remain in stable homes. These resources 

will fund mental health services, respite support, training seminars, one-on-one counseling support, and a post-permanency resource center. 

Recruitment and Retention of Foster Parents 

The Committee is providing $250,000 to recruit and retain foster 

parents. The Committee recognizes that CFSA has experienced difficulties recruiting and retaining an adequate number of appropriate, qualified foster parents. This lack of sufficient numbers of 

foster homes has given rise to so-called group homes in the District. 

One reason for the shortage of foster parents is the lack of availability of respite care in the District. The Committee has been informed that foster parents do not have the same opportunities for 

respite as biological parents. Foster parents cannot merely send 

their children to spend the weekend with a relative or family 

friend, or to visit with a classmate at his or her home. Foster parents must seek out persons who have met many agency-established 

criteria. Therefore, foster parents often care for their children— 

many of whom have special needs—without significant breaks. 

Of the funds provided, the Committee intends that the Washington Council of Governments, which has years of experience with 

the D.C. foster care system, provide the direct service implementation of this respite proposal and that the Foster and Adoptive Parents Advocacy Center provide the oversight, quality control, and 

evaluation of the program. The Committee intends that resources 

shall provide: (1) emergency respite, which would be provided with 

less than 1 month’s notice; (2) planned respite, which would be 

planned at least 1 month in advance; and (3) ongoing respite, 

which would be at pre-established meeting times and places, e.g., 

Saturday programs, enrichment programs, and field trips. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $39,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... 40,800,000 

House allowance .................................................................................... 40,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000 

The Committee has included $40,000,000 to augment and improve educational opportunities for all students in the District of 

Columbia. This is $400,000 above the fiscal year 2006 enacted level 

and $800,000 below the President’s budget request. This initiative 

is comprised of three interrelated components: investing in excellence in traditional public schools; expanding choice through high 

quality public charter schools; and offering opportunity scholarships for low-income students in under-performing schools. Therefore, of the funds provided, $13,000,000 is to provide a scholarship 

program for low-income children in under-performing schools; 

$13,000,000 is for the development of quality public charter 

schools; $13,000,000 is to strengthen leadership and instructional 
18 

excellence and increase student achievement at District of Columbia Public Schools in accordance with the No Child Left Behind 

Act; and $1,000,000 is for administrative expenses. 

Improving Public Education 

The Committee notes that the Department of Education has informed the Superintendent of DCPS that the Department has serious and continuing concerns with DCPS’ administration of federally funded education programs. As a result of the problems identified in several audits and reviews, the Department has designated 

DCPS a ‘‘high-risk’’ grantee for all the grants it receives from the 

Department. 

For a number of years, independent single audit findings and Department program reviews have identified significant problems 

that DCPS has had in meeting some of the most fundamental program accountability requirements, including implementing appropriate financial, recordkeeping, and internal control systems and 

procedures. Many of the problems identified affect the delivery of 

services to students. In fact, DCPS is currently at the lowest levels 

of state educational agency performance as measured by National 

Assessment of Educational Progress scores. DCPS’s average scores 

in the 2005 Trial Urban District Assessment (for reading and for 

math at both tested levels) were lower than every other participating city school district. 

The most significant findings from these audits and reviews are: 

—Fiscal management weaknesses, including: 

—Lack of timely allocation and use of Federal funds 

—Expenditures for salaries without appropriate documentation 

—Lack of proper controls for management of property and 

equipment 

—Lack of proper procurement controls 

—Lack of record keeping for and funding to charter schools 

—Inadequate monitoring of subgrantees 

—Repeated material findings in single audits 

—Management information systems inadequate to meet Federal 

reporting requirements 

—Continuing noncompliance with IDEA program requirements. 

The Committee recognizes that the ‘‘high-risk designation is a 

very serious matter, and it expects that DCPS will take immediate 

steps to correct these problems and to demonstrate significant improvements. In light of this designation, the Committee is not confident in DCPS’ ability to expend Federal resources provided by 

this Committee. As a result, the Committee is appropriating 

$13,000,000 directly to the District of Columbia State Education 

Office to be used for the following purposes: (1) $5,000,000 to hire, 

place, and train highly qualified teachers and principals in District 

of Columbia public schools; (2) $5,500,000 for training and materials to expand the availability of advanced placement courses and 

for subsequent testing, and to expand vocational and technical programs which enhance postsecondary opportunities for students; (3) 

$500,000 to support the Superintendent’s Master Education Plan; 

and (4) $2,000,000 for the High Performing Incentive Award program. The Committee believes that expenditures for these specific 

purposes can be directly linked to classroom conditions, can be 
19 

readily tracked, and whose impact can be measured in terms of 

student performance. The Committee intends that in order to be 

meaningful, the High Performing Incentive Awards be at least 

$200,000 to each selected entity. 

Improving Facilities and Efficiency.—The Committee has raised 

concerns with the District in public hearings in 2005 and prior, 

about the inefficiency of maintaining at least 5 million square feet 

of underutilized or unused space in DCPS facilities, identified by 

independent entities. The Committee supports the Superintendent 

and the D.C. Board of Education [BOE] goal to consolidate underutilized space in D.C. Public School facilities, specifically the BOE 

decision to consolidate 1 million square feet of space by the school 

year 2006–2007 and consolidate an additional 2 million square feet 

of space by school year 2007–2008. 

The Committee is encouraged by the BOE and the Superintendent’s decision for the first round of school consolidations including 

closing five public school facilities and leasing space in eight additional public schools for co-location with public charter schools. The 

Committee strongly supports more efficient use of public school facilities and the lease of unused space to public charter schools. The 

District has estimated $8,000,000 in revenue in fiscal year 2007 

from leases of unused space. The Committee supports DCPS efforts 

to generate additional revenue and more effectively target resources to expanding quality educational opportunities and to improving facilities. 

The Committee supports the Superintendent’s proposal to establish a dual language expansion and replication of Oyster Elementary School with Adams Elementary School, creating the first prekindergarten through eighth grade program at the two schools. 

This replication model will also establish a demonstration site for 

principals and families to learn about the highly effective program. 

The Committee is committed to establishing this model in school 

year 2007–2008 and expects DCPS to work with the Oyster community in developing this replication model to ensure it supports 

this excellent program. 

In addition to the necessary school consolidations, the Council of 

the District of Columbia committed to better facilities in the School 

Modernization Financing Act of 2006. The legislation launches a 

$2,500,000,000, 10-year school modernization program where priority is given to public school facilities which engage in partnerships with public charter schools and other District agencies. The 

Committee commends this action and supports this type of 

leveraging of public funds to maximize the benefit in the community. The Committee believes that any facilities modernization plan 

must continue to place a high priority eliminating excess capacity. 

Oversight Structure.—The Committee notes for the record that 

the current management and accountability structure in the District of Columbia Public School system commingles the functions of 

the local education agency [LEA] and State education agency [SEA] 

and vests both in the D.C. Board of Education [BOE]. Under this 

structure, there are no clear delineations in funding, reporting, accounting, or staffing. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education 

designated DCPS a ‘‘high risk grantee’’ for Federal funding and 
20 

this structure is a contributing factor in the Department’s lack of 

confidence. 

In almost every other jurisdiction, the LEA is directly accountable to the SEA and the SEA is responsible for providing independent oversight accountability and support to the LEA. This is 

not so in the District. In the District, the State Education Office 

manages some Federal funding and programs, but has no authority 

over public schools. This single tiered system continues to frustrate 

the District’s efforts to comply with Federal accountability standards set by the No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB]. Specifically, the 

District’s accountability system lacks sufficient measures and interventions for schools failing to make ‘‘adequate yearly progress’’ as 

defined by the NCLB. In addition, the current structure poses additional accountability issues for public charter schools, who are monitored by the SEA in the District, instead of the LEA as in other 

jurisdictions. 

The Committee directs the D.C. Board of Education to contract 

with an independent entity to develop legislation to separate the 

D.C. local education agency functions from the State education 

agency functions by establishing or designating a State-level entity 

to assume all State-level education functions and the SEA authority, separate from all LEAs. The independent entity, in consultation with the BOE, the Mayor, the Council of the District of Columbia, the Superintendent of DCPS, the State Education Office, and 

the D.C. Public Charter School Board shall develop legislation that 

is consistent with the following: implementing the State planning 

and accountability requirements of NCLB; best practices for State 

agency organization and functions; and Federal requirements for 

State roles and responsibilities. This proposed legislation shall be 

submitted to the Congress no later than 120 days after enactment 

of this act to inform congressional actions to clarify State-level 

functions. 

Evaluation of D.C. Public School System.—The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to conduct a 

comprehensive review of the District of Columbia Public School 

System’s personnel, management, and systems management. The 

review should assess DCPS’s financial management and accounting, information technology systems, Federal grants management, 

and reporting processes. The Committee directs GAO to work with 

the Department of Education to determine what improvements 

DCPS needs to make to eliminate its ‘‘high risk’’ designation. The 

Committee directs GAO to report on these findings by May 1, 2007. 

Strengthening Charter Schools 

The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for public charter 

schools in the District of Columbia, directed to specific initiatives 

which will strengthen schools, enhance capacity, improve academic 

quality, and create a network of integrated services. The Committee recommends the following allocation of resources: $6,000,000 

for the Direct Loan Fund for Charter Schools; $3,500,000 for continuation of the City Build Charter School Program; $1,000,000 for 

the Public Education Improvement Incentive Award program; 

$1,050,000 for grants to public charter schools for co-location with 
21 

DCPS buildings; $1,000,000 for a quality initiative; and $450,000 

for administration within the State Education Office. 

The Committee has played a significant role in the development 

of public charter schools in the District of Columbia. In school year 

2006–2007, there will be 58 public charter schools educating 25 

percent of the student population, giving the District the distinction of having more charter schools per capital than any other city 

or State in the Nation. 

The Committee received requests from several public charter 

schools in the District for capital improvements or construction 

funding. Instead of earmarking these funds, the Committee is providing $6,000,000 for D.C. government programs to provide financing for public charter schools to improve facilities. The Committee 

has reviewed proposals for funding and recommends that the Office 

of Public Charter School Financing and Support give particular 

consideration to proposals submitted by the following schools: E.L. 

Haynes Public Charter School; Friendship Tech Prep Academy in 

Anacostia; KIPP DC preschool through grade 12 Campus; and 

Washington Latin School. 

The Committee recommends that the Mayor conduct an assessment of the current open enrollment and lottery system for public 

charter schools in the District. This assessment should identify and 

recommend a solution to challenges in the open enrollment system, 

including supporting neighborhood schools, partnerships, or duallanguage programs. 

The Committee directs the Mayor to provide a quarterly financial 

report to the Committees on Appropriations on the performance of 

the Direct Loan Fund and Credit Enhancement for Public Charter 

Schools. The report shall include: (1) a summary of obligations, expenditures, and the purpose therefore; (2) the public charter 

schools benefiting from such funds and their expenditures; and (3) 

the investment of all funds, both local and Federal, and interest 

earnings from such investments. 

The Committee is informed that the Securities and Exchange 

Commission [SEC] has frozen all assets of a certain business entity 

that the District had selected to conduct the banking transactions 

necessary to run the Charter School Revolving Loan and Credit Enhancement Programs. Assets held by this business entity include 

$9,600,000 in Federal funds appropriated to the District of Columbia. Consequently, while the investigation is ongoing, these funds 

are not available to the District. In addition to the SEC’s investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office is conducting its own investigation. 

Further, the D.C. Office of the Inspector General, the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer and the D.C. Office of the Attorney General 

are all coordinating various investigations into this matter. Whether and when the $9,600,000 in funds will be made available to the 

District must be determined by the SEC. 

The Committee understands that the District has agreed to take 

steps to ensure that the credit enhancement and direct loan programs are provided with the resources necessary to continue operations as though not affected by the freezing of funds by the SEC. 

In addition, the District has undertaken substantial reform of the 

programs since the Office of Public Charter School Financing and 

Support was placed within the State Education Office in fiscal year 
22 

2005. The State Education Office is instituting new processes and 

protections for the program and is working with the Office of the 

Chief Financial Officer to restructure its investment strategy. 

The Committee encourages the Mayor to ensure that there is no 

disruption in the program to provide financing to qualified public 

charter schools and directs the Mayor to replenish funds if disruptions seem likely. 

Quality.—The D.C. Board of Education voted in June 2006 to impose a moratorium on issuing additional charters in order to evaluate the BOE’s desire to continue authorizing public charter schools. 

The BOE has authorized 25 schools and currently oversees 17 public charter schools in the District of Columbia. 

Congress authorized, in the D.C. School Reform Act of 1995, the 

BOE and an independent entity, the D.C. Public Charter School 

Board [DCPCSB], as eligible chartering authorities (or authorizers) 

to authorize and oversee public charter schools in the District. Congress also allowed the Council of the District of Columbia to designate a third eligible chartering authority through legislation and 

for several Federal agencies to explore the feasibility of authorizing 

public charter schools in the District. 

The Committee supports the benefits of inherent competition 

among multiple chartering authorities and recognizes that the District is only the second jurisdiction nationwide to have this structure. However, the Committee has raised concern with the quality 

of oversight performed on public charter schools and questioned if 

the BOE would be more efficient focusing only on DCPS. The Committee welcomes the current examination of the chartering authority structure and strongly urges the BOE, Mayor, Council and 

charter school community to make the goal of quality public charter schools the highest priority in considering any legislative action. The Committee would consider, with the appropriate authorizing committees of Congress, legislation to modify the chartering 

authority structure, including amending the D.C. School Reform 

Act to designate another authorizer. 

The Committee directs the U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO] to assess, as part of the biannual report to the Congress 

on the D.C. public charter school authorizers, the BOE moratorium 

and to make recommendations on what entity should assume responsibility for existing BOE public charter schools. 

Consistent with Committee direction in 2005, the D.C. charter 

school authorizing boards, the BOE and the DCPCSB, have taken 

necessary steps to ensure that each authorized public charter 

school has an annual financial audit consistent with standards set 

by the D.C. Chief Financial Officer. The Committee encourages 

oversight of the financial accountability and transparency of the 

authorizing boards. 

The Committee noted in the fiscal year 2006 report concern that 

the current law prohibits authorizers from revoking a charter at 

any time for failure to meet the public charter school’s academic 

performance goals, authorizers may only revoke charters for financial or management concerns. The law governing charter school authorization and oversight should make academic achievement paramount. 
23 

Facilities.—Access to appropriate facilities is a major challenge of 

public charter schools. The Committee is encouraged that public 

charter schools will receive equal access to public facilities and financing. The following are specific areas of concern for the Committee. 

The Superintendent’s recommendation for the first phase of 

school consolidations or rightsizing proposed that unused public 

school space be leased to public charter schools and the revenue be 

used to improve the facilities in D.C. Public Schools. The Committee strongly supports this effort and has dedicated $1,050,000 

of the $13,000,000 for public charter schools to support improving 

facilities occupied by public charter schools. The Committee strongly encourages the Superintendent to use a transparent process for 

leasing unused DCPS facilities to public charter schools consistent 

with the right of first refusal in the 1995 D.C. School Reform Act 

(D.C. Code 38–1802.09). 

The Committee supports DCPS efforts to facilitate co-location of 

public charter schools and DCPS facilities to enable the District to 

better utilize its school facilities in a cost efficient manner. The Superintendent’s recommendation for school consolidations or 

rightsizing proposes seven DCPS schools for co-location with a public charter school. The Committee was disappointed that a proposal 

in 2005 to make space in 10 DCPS schools available to public charter schools resulted in only two co-locations of public charter 

schools and DCPS. The Committee strongly supports partnerships 

and co-locations which maximize the benefit of public funds, and 

will look favorably upon such partnerships to further leverage local 

funding provided through the D.C. School Modernization Financing 

Act of 2006. The District requires that rental payments from a 

charter school be for the use of the host school, which provides a 

strong incentive to lease underutilized space (D.C. Code § 38– 

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

Surplus Public School Facilities.—In March 2000 the District of 

Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 

Authority transferred jurisdiction of 38 public school properties to 

the control of the Mayor of the District of Columbia. 

The School Reform Act of 1995 provided a preference for charter 

schools to obtain surplus property to alleviate identified lack of appropriate school space. The Committee strongly supported the legal 

preference in its fiscal year 2003 and 2004 Committee reports. In 

addition, Public Law 108–335, section 342(c) requires that charter 

schools are provided a right of first offer on the disposition of any 

property. The Committee is disappointed that the Mayor and the 

Council of the District of Columbia were unable to make more than 

two additional surplus former public school buildings available to 

public charter schools in the last year. 

The Committee report 109–106 requested a report from the 

Mayor of the District of Columbia, in consultation with the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, on the current use 

of all 38 original surplus properties, the market rate value of each 

property, and the profit generated from any prior sales to more 

fully understand the benefit to the city. This report was not submitted. 
24 

The Committee strongly believes that proceeds from sales or 

leases of surplus public school property should be deposited into a 

segregated account for school facilities improvement to enable the 

Superintendent to improve the entire system at a time when facilities funding is limited. This year public charter schools spent $16,000,000 on the private 

real estate market to renovate facilities for educational use. The 

Committee remains concerned about the lack of appropriate educational space for public charter schools while former public school 

facilities are used for other purposes. The Committee expects that 

additional surplus public school facilities will be made available expeditiously to charter schools, consistent with the right of first offer 

required under Section 342(c) of Public Law 108–335. 

City Build Charter School Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,500,000 to continue the City Build Charter School Program consistent with an independent study conducted in 2006. The program shall first identify communities which 

have the greatest near term potential of attracting or retaining 

residents as ‘‘City Build Communities’’; then the Mayor may solicit 

proposals from public charter schools to locate in City Build Communities. The Committee believes that public charter schools which 

demonstrate community service activities, such as family literacy 

programs, should receive priority in future grants. In addition, the 

Committee continues to strongly encourage the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development to give priority and to highly leverage public 

funds to projects which include charter schools or other educational 

space in future development in the District. The Committee is reviewing the management of the City Build Program and may 

change the current structure to strengthen the program and improve its benefits to the community. 

Improving Opportunities for School Choice 

The Committee recommendation includes $13,000,000 to continue a scholarship program to allow low-income students attending consistently under-performing public schools to choose to attend 

private schools within the District. The Committee believes that 

this program is improving the academic prospects of students receiving scholarships and is stimulating improvement within the 

public school system. 

The Committee is providing funds for scholarships that will be 

available to low-income District students in grades kindergarten 

through 12 who are attending consistently low performing public 

schools. The scholarships are for the tuition, transportation, and 

fees at participating private schools within the District and cannot 

exceed $7,500 per elementary, middle school, or high school student. If the funds provided are not sufficient to serve all the eligible applicants, scholarships will be awarded through random selection. 

Program Is Succeeding 

The Committee is very pleased with the first 2 academic years 

of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. In the program’s 

first 2 years, the Washington Scholarship Fund [WSF], the grantee 
25 

administering the program, accepted nearly 6,000 applications for 

approximately 2,400 available scholarships. The Committee understands the challenges that WSF has met, particularly given the 

short amount of time that the organization had to design, launch 

and recruit for this historic demonstration project in school choice. 

In the ‘‘Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: 

Second Year Report on Participation,’’ the Institute for Education 

Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education noted that: 

—44 percent of all eligible applicants entering grades 1 through 

12 came from a public school designated as ‘‘in need of improvement’’ under the No Child Left Behind Act between 2003 

and 2005. (When eligible applicants entering Kindergarten are 

added, that percentage rises to 65 percent). 

—The average household income of the new 2005–2006 scholarship recipients was $16,651, far below the statutory requirement of 185 percent of the poverty level. 

—The number of scholarships awarded in the program’s first 2 

years is high enough to create a robust ‘‘treatment’’ group 

across all 13 grades (K–12) for the rigorous, federally mandated evaluation of the program. The evaluation’s ‘‘control’’ 

group is also sufficient across all grades. 

In the ‘‘Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: 

First Year Report on Participation,’’ the Institute for Education 

Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education noted that: 

—Compared to other scholarship programs across the Nation, 

this program has a more diverse group of participating schools, 

including 28 percent of schools that are not religiously affiliated. 

In addition to these conclusions from the Department of Education’s reports, the Committee notes that last fall, 1,630 students 

entered D.C. non-public schools using Opportunity Scholarships. 

The second year of the program offered scholarship recipients a 

choice of 68 participating schools. The Committee is pleased that 

the treatment and control groups are sufficient for the federally 

mandated evaluation, including students in all 13 grades, K–12. 

Preventing Families From Earning Out of the Program 

Against the backdrop of this very promising start, the Committee 

is concerned that too many students will lose their scholarships because their household incomes are rising slightly. Once a student 

has been in the program for a year, the household income eligibility 

threshold rises from 185 percent of the poverty level to 200 percent 

of the poverty level. The Committee understands that for various 

reasons, nearly 650 students will lose their scholarships over the 

next 3 years if the 200 percent threshold is not raised. As a result, 

these students will be forced to leave their current, non-public 

schools and return to public schools. These students will remain in 

the Federal evaluation’s ‘‘treatment’’ group even though they are no 

longer being ‘‘treated.’’ This, along with very limited high school capacity, will jeopardize the Federal evaluation, which will be rendered inconclusive if less than 50 percent of the students in the 

‘‘treatment’’ group are using their scholarships. In most cases, families are ‘‘earning out’’ of the program by a few hundred dollars. For 
26 

instance, a parent gets a slight raise, a promotion, or a higher-paying job, or parents that were separated reconcile. 

For this reason, the Committee has included language to allow 

children already in the program to stay in the program if their 

families’ incomes are below 300 percent of Federal poverty level. 

Evaluation of D.C. School Choice Incentive Act.—The Committee 

directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to conduct a 

comprehensive review of the Opportunity Scholarship Program. 

Not later than April 1, 2007, the GAO shall report on the methodologies for conducting the program evaluation and shall assess 

and analyze the demographic and other characteristics of the students participating in and leaving the program; the selection criteria for schools wishing to participate and the methods used to select students who receive an offer to participate in the program; 

and an analysis of the administration of the program and use of 

Federal funds. 

In addition, this GAO review shall assess the administration of 

testing or other measurements to compare the academic achievement and rates of retention, drop-out, graduation, and college admission of the students in the program with comparable students 

enrolled in the District of Columbia public school system. The report should also include information from parents of scholarship 

students as well as parents of the District of Columbia public 

school students about how satisfied they are with the quality of 

their child’s education. This information should be presented by income level. 

The GAO shall also report on the challenges facing the Washington Scholarship Fund as it administers the program. These 

challenges include outreach to low-income parents, the need for additional academic remediation for children who enter private school 

below grade level, and the oversight of the program participants. 

The study should also provide information on the challenges that 

schools who educate scholarship students face and the additional 

costs they bear to accept these students. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR FORENSICS AND BIOTERRORISM LABORATORY

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $4,950,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,500,000 

The Committee recommends $4,500,000 for costs associated with 

the construction of a new bioterrorism and forensics laboratory in 

the District of Columbia. This is $450,000 less than the fiscal year 

2006 enacted level. The President did not request funds for this activity. The District’s laboratory capacity has not kept pace with the 

innovations in the field and is therefore unable to meet the demands of the current workload. Because of this lack of capacity, the 

District is forced to seek help from the FBI crime laboratory in 

Quantico, Virginia. The FBI has its own workload capacity and 

therefore limits the evidence it will process for the District to four 

pieces of forensic evidence for violent crimes. This lack of capacity 

and the limitations of old technology have led to many so-called 

‘‘cold’’ or unsolved crime cases in the District. A new laboratory will 

not only allow the District to more effectively and efficiently proc-
27 

ess crime cases, but it will be an essential element in processing 

evidence associated with potential bioterrorism attacks. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR MARRIAGE DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS AND

MARRIAGE PROMOTION

Appropriations, 2006 ............................................................................. $2,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2007 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,000,000 

The Committee is providing $4,000,000 for marriage promotion 

and to continue Marriage Development accounts. 

Children Raised by Married Parents Usually Have Brighter Futures 

The Committee notes that the family is the very foundation and 

building block of a society. When families thrive, communities 

thrive, and society thrives. Marriage is the essence of family formation and our most important social institution. It is the place from 

which healthy children and, ultimately, a healthy society are born. 

The Committee is aware that almost all available research 

shows—and social policy experts agree—that children do best when 

they grow up in homes with their married, biological parents. They 

are generally healthier, happier, and have brighter futures than 

children who grow up with only one parent. Statistics tell a compelling story: children raised by only 1 parent are three times more 

likely to repeat a grade in school; five times more likely to have behavioral problems; twice as likely to be depressed; three times 

more likely to use illicit drugs; twice as likely to become sexually 

active as teenagers; and are seven times more likely to live in poverty. In fact, children born to unmarried mothers are likely to live 

in poverty and require support from the welfare system. 

Given the enormous benefits that accrue to children who are 

raised by their married parents, the Committee believes that it is 

a moral and societal imperative that our nation esteem, support, 

foster, and encourage the institution of marriage. 

The Committee is pleased to announce that the Mayor of the District of Columbia will take important actions to encourage marriage 

in the District of Columbia. These actions include: (1) eliminating 

marriage penalties for low-income couples who decide to wed; (2) 

increasing the earned income tax credit for married couples in the 

District; and (3) assigning priority status to married couples and 

their families for low-income and federally funded housing. The 

Committee is also providing $1,000,000 to the District of Columbia 

Department of Human Services to support occupational training for 

married parents to improve their prospects for full-time employment. 

Low-Income Couples Face Significant Marriage Penalties 

Through Committee hearings, briefings, and research, the Committee has learned that governmental policies have often worked to 

discourage marriage. In May witnesses testified before the Committee that government policies have served to weaken marriage 

over the past 40 years. Certain programs created in the 1960’s had 

the unintended consequence of discouraging marriage by providing 

financial incentives for low-income parents to never get married. 
28 

These policies have made—and continue to make—it economically 

irrational for a poor mother to get married. 

Four decades of these incentives have wrought a significant and 

tragic result for our children: fully 35 percent of all babies are born 

to single mothers. This compares to just 4 percent in 1960. And the 

picture is nothing short of devastating for African-American families: 70 percent of all children are born to single mothers. 

The Committee has been informed that the lower the parents’ income, the greater the likelihood that he or she will be raising children alone. According to the Congressional Research Service, 55 

percent of all families with children whose incomes are below 

$30,000 are headed by an unmarried parent. Families in this income range make up over one-third of all families with children in 

the United States. 

Although the 1996 Welfare Reform Act attempted to remove the 

incentives for parents to remain unmarried, unwed birthrates have 

continued to increase. In fact, government policies often continue to 

penalize low-income couples with children who decide to get married. 

During a recent hearing before this Committee, Dr. Eugene 

Steuerle of the Urban Institute testified about his work with Adam 

Carasso on what they call ‘‘the hefty tax on marriage facing many 

low-income households with children.’’ Dr. Steuerle pointed out 

that most households with children whose parents earn low or 

moderate incomes (under $40,000) are significantly penalized for 

getting married. Essentially, a couple will fall off the ‘‘benefits cliff’’ 

when they take their wedding vows because even small increases 

in income result in thousands of dollars of lost benefits. Dr. 

Steuerle’s research has led him to make a very troubling observation. He testified before the Committee that ‘‘in aggregate, couples 

today face hundreds of billions of dollars in increased taxes or reduced benefits if they marry. Cohabitation or not getting married 

has become the tax shelter for the poor.’’ 

At first this statement is a shocking one, but upon further consideration, it is quite understandable because it makes little economic sense for low-income couples to get married. If a low-income 

mother is faced with losing the ability to feed and clothe her children when she takes a wedding vow, why would she choose to do 

so? 

The Committee also heard testimony from a mother of four who 

just recently married the father of her children. She testified that 

‘‘a reality that contributed to our delay in getting married was fear 

over what would happen to the public benefits we need to support 

our family.’’ She went on to say that ‘‘it is the experience of people 

in my community that if a woman gets married her income from 

TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and other benefits will decrease. This is a disincentive to marriage and I understand why. As a mother of four, the possibility of losing income I 

desperately needed to support my children altered my own judgment about marriage for so long.’’ 

The decision for this couple to marry was economically irrational 

because it means that every month they have to get by on less than 

they used to before they got married. They are being financially penalized for taking a wedding vow. It is not surprising that in many 
29 

low-income communities marriage is disappearing and children are 

growing up without the love and nurturing of both parents. For 

four decades we have essentially been taxing low-income marriage 

and subsidizing single parenthood. It is no wonder, then, that we 

have less marriage and more single parents in low-income communities. 

The Committee is aware that there are many single mothers who 

are heroically and successfully raising children on their own. They 

deserve our respect and support. But it is an indisputable fact that 

a father and a mother, bound together in marriage, provide the 

best environment in which to raise healthy children. As a society, 

we should strive to foster what is the very best for our children. 

The Mayor Will Work to Eliminate Marriage Penalties in the District of Columbia 

The Mayor of the District of Columbia has agreed to partner with 

this Committee to increase marriage rates in a number of ways. 

First, the District will begin using some of its TANF funds to provide additional cash supplements to couples who would otherwise 

have lost benefits by getting married. The District will determine 

the potential loss of benefits and will then provide monthly cash 

payments to replace those lost benefits. The District has agreed to 

provide these benefits for the first 2 years of the couples’ marriage. 

This will effectively eliminate the ‘‘marriage penalty’’ and will ‘‘hold 

couples harmless’’ for their decision to wed. The Committee believes that in the long run eliminating marriage penalties will actually save money because fewer children will be raised by single 

parents in poverty and these children will, in turn, be less likely 

to rely on public assistance. But more importantly, eliminating 

marriage penalties for low-income families will encourage marriage 

and enable more children to grow up in the very best environment 

possible—with their married biological mother and father. 

The Committee lauds the Mayor for taking this important step 

to eliminate marriage penalties and believes that all States should 

take aggressive measures to eliminate marriage penalties for lowincome couples. 

The Mayor Will Increase Earned Income Tax Credit for Married 

Couples in the District of Columbia 

The Committee notes that the Mayor of the District of Columbia 

has also agreed to increase the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC] 

for married coupled in the District of Columbia. 

The Committee is informed that when a low-income working 

woman and a low-income working man decide to marry, they face 

reductions in their EITC benefits. This is because benefits are 

based on household income, rather than individual income. Unfortunately, this situation encourages couples to cohabit or never 

marry in order to preserve their EITC benefits. 

One way to eliminate this penalty is to simply base the credit on 

individual income rather than family income. Another option is to 

extend the maximum benefit for married couples, while leaving it 

unchanged for single parents. The Committee understands that the 

Mayor has agreed to increase EITC benefits by using whichever 

method is easiest to administer. 
30 

The Mayor Will Assign Priority Status to Married Couples for Access to Low-income and Federally-funded Housing 

The Committee is pleased that the Mayor has decided to give priority to married couples who are seeking low-income housing. The 

Committee understands that one obstacle to marriage for low-income single mothers is the loss of housing benefits if they decide 

to marry. When public-housing subsidies are withdrawn or substantially reduced following the marriage of a welfare recipient, the 

essential message this sends to single mothers is: If you want your 

welfare benefits to continue, avoid marrying an employed man. 

Given the important stability that affordable housing provides to 

families, the Committee is pleased that the Mayor has decided to 

give married couples priority access to low-income housing. The 

Committee believes that other States should considering following 

the Mayor’s example. 

More Job Training and Employment Opportunities Will Help Stabilize Marriages 

According to the Congressional Research Service, more than onethird of all unmarried parents in the District of Columbia have 

household incomes that are less than $10,000 per year, making 

them the city’s largest single income grouping of unmarried parents. Nearly 86 percent of all families with children having income 

less than $10,000 per year are headed by a single parent. These 

are the parents that require direct assistance because most do not 

have full-time, full-year employment and therefore count on public 

benefits to sustain them. 

According to District of Columbia officials, the disproportionately 

low levels of functional literacy of TANF recipients creates a serious challenge to moving persons into higher paying jobs that lead 

to long-term self-sufficiency and marital stability. With little formal 

education and low functional literacy rates, many single parents 

simply are not well-positioned to advance beyond entry level jobs 

and ill-prepared to pursue formal education that will lead to higher 

paying jobs. 

Research shows that most low-income parents want jobs and are 

interested in formal education to the extent it quickly leads to employment. Also, noncustodial male parents are frequently interested in obtaining employment as a means of being responsible fathers. However, these men have consistently been unable to access 

traditional workforce development programs because they cannot 

meet the program requirements of a high school diploma or 8th 

grade reading and math proficiency. 

The Committee recognizes that many low-income parents are 

functionally illiterate and lack occupational skills and it is therefore providing resources to the District of Columbia Department of 

Human Services for occupational skills training and developmental 

education programs. These programs will be available to married 

men and women. They will include: 

(1) Developmental education that teaches basic reading, writing, 

math, and/or English language skills in the context of a specific occupation, helping the participant quickly enter and succeed in the 

workforce or other training programs; and 
31 

(2) Occupational skills training which leads to employment and 

prepares the participant for more advanced training and a higher 

skill position. 

The Committee believes that these programs are attractive because they are generally shorter in length and more intensive than 

other adult courses, and are often linked to a specific employer. 

Given these characteristics, many programs are employer-sponsored or linked to providers of technical education. The funds included will support courses including remedial math and reading 

which are taught in a manner that incorporates material specific 

to the occupation for which the individual is being trained, and incorporate teaching methods that are more appealing to adult learners with limited basic skills such as projects, simulations, and experiential learning. 

In the District, many employers cannot hire many of the city’s 

low income parents because they do not have necessary job skills. 

It is no surprise, then, that the District of Columbia Chamber of 

Commerce has specifically called for the creation of bridge training 

programs to address employment needs. This demonstration project 

will be linked to ongoing D.C. marriage and fatherhood promotion 

efforts. Services will be provided through contracts to community 

providers to develop community based bridge programs as part of 

a partnership with the Department of Human Services, the State 

Education Office, and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Children, 

Youth and Families and Elders. 

Continuing Marriage Development Accounts 

The Committee believes that Federal, State and local leaders 

must act as quickly as possible to stop the erosion of marriage in 

our Nation. Millions of children are suffering the consequences of 

growing up without both of their parents. We must act aggressively 

to encourage marriage—not penalize it. 

Rather than economically penalizing low-income couples who decide to marry, the Committee believes we should help these couples 

gain stronger financial security. The promise of financial security 

can help promote and sustain healthy marriages, just as financial 

penalties can discourage and harm marriages. 

As a way to help low-income married couples gain appreciable 

assets here in the District of Columbia, the Committee is providing 

$1,500,000 to continue to pilot new federally funded ‘‘Marriage Development Accounts.’’ These MDAs are available to low-income 

married couples who are citizens or legal residents of the District 

and who have very low net worth. Couples can save money to buy 

a home, pay for job training or education for themselves or their 

children, or start their own businesses. Couples who open an MDA 

will have a high incentive to save because their contributions will 

be matched at a ratio of 3:1 by the Federal Government and 

partnering private institutions. As a requirement of participation, 

couples are receiving training to help them repair their credit, set 

a budget and savings schedule, and manage their money. Couples 

will also receive bonuses in their MDA accounts for receiving marriage counseling. 

On April 27, 2006, leaders from the District of Columbia government, the faith community, nonprofit organizations and more than 
32 

350 District residents launched the ‘‘Together is Better’’ campaign 

to strengthen marriages, with MDAs offered as an important tool 

to help low-income married and engaged couples put their lives on 

firm financial ground. 

The Committee has included funds in this bill to continue MDAs 

as a way to help low-income couples get and stay married so that 

husbands and wives and their children can have a brighter future. 

By itself it cannot cancel out the hefty marriage penalties that are 

levied on so many low-income couples who decide to marry, but it 

is a start. The Committee believes that MDAs, the elimination of 

marriage penalties, an increase in EITC for married couples, and 

job training for enhanced employability will all work in concert to 

encourage marriage, which has been discouraged for low-income 

couples over the past 40 years. 

Promoting Successful Marriages and Encouraging Positive Life Decisions 

The Committee is providing $750,000 for the East Capitol Center for Change [ECCC] and $750,000 for the National Center for Fathering [NCF] to work with local churches and other faith-based organizations to provide marriage counseling, couples mentoring, couples coaching, marriage retreats, ‘‘Dad training,’’ and community 

outreach. Both ECCC and NCF are working with CAAB and its 

participating service providers to provide account holders with life 

skills counseling, couples mentoring, and youth mentoring (which 

will include relationship counseling and abstinence counseling). 

ECCC and NCF are working with the faith community to provide 

pre-marital and marital counseling and relationship mentors and 

coaches for participating couples. 

Recognizing the importance of grassroots support to ensure the 

success of these efforts, the Committee directs ECCC and NCF to 

expand their network of service providers by developing partnership with local churches, faith-based organizations, and other 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 TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR NAVY YARD

METRO

The Committee is providing $4,000,000 to improve and upgrade 

the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s Navy Yard 

Metro station. The President’s budget includes $20,000,000 in funding for this purpose. This investment is modeled on other transit 

investments the Federal Government has made in the District and 

it will help improve capacity for expanded Federal workforce needs 

at the new U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters and 

the Southeast Federal Center. The Committee also recognizes the 
33 

importance of improving public access to the tremendous natural 

amenities along the Anacostia River, which the expansion of this 

Metro station will provide. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR A NEW STATEOF-THE-ART CENTRAL LIBRARY

The Committee is providing $15,000,000 as a Federal contribution for a new central library. The Committee recognizes that the 

District’s adult illiteracy rate is 37 percent and notes that in many 

major metropolitan areas around the country, new libraries have 

revitalized many distressed neighborhoods. For this reason, the 

Mayor established a Blue Ribbon Task Force comprised of local and 

national experts. The Blue Ribbon Task Force recommended the 

creation of a state-of-the-art library system to add multi-lingual 

support, add hundreds of new computers with broadband technology, and add deep reference materials and childrens’ programs. 

The Mayor believes, and the Committee agrees, that this new central library will help create brighter futures for District of Columbia residents. 

The Committee notes that the estimated cost of building the District’s central library and refurbishing satellite libraries will be approximately $450,000,000. The Committee recognizes that the lion’s 

share of funding for the library project will be borne by District 

residents. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL OPERATING BUDGET

The Committee recommends a total of $9,057,361,000 for the operating expenses of the District of Columbia as contained in the fiscal year 2007 budget submitted to the Congress by the Government 

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

$5,271,162,000 is from local funds, $2,020,101,000 is from Federal 

grant funds, $1,758,214,000 is from other funds, and $7,885,000 is 

from private funds. The Committee directs that any changes to the 

financial plan as submitted by the District must follow the reprogramming guidelines. 

The following tables detail the revenue and expenses plan of the 

District for fiscal year 2007: 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 FINANCIAL PLAN 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Local Funds Grants and other 

revenue Gross funds 

Revenues 

Local Sources: 

Property Taxes ................................................................................... 1,345,111 ........................ 1,345,111 

Sales Taxes ....................................................................................... 815,498 ........................ 815,498 

Income Taxes .................................................................................... 1,576,071 ........................ 1,576,071 

Gross Receipts .................................................................................. 261,186 ........................ 261,186 

Other Taxes ....................................................................................... 314,733 ........................ 314,733 

Licenses and Permits ....................................................................... 70,845 ........................ 70,845 

Fines and Forfeitures ........................................................................ 107,336 ........................ 107,336 

Charges/Services ............................................................................... 53,218 ........................ 53,218 

Miscellaneous .................................................................................... 550,990 ........................ 550,990 

Fund Balance Use ............................................................................. 284,287 ........................ 284,287 
34 

FISCAL YEAR 2007 FINANCIAL PLAN—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Local Funds Grants and other 

revenue Gross funds 

Revenue Proposals/Onetime Revenues ............................................. 113,268 ........................ 113,268 

Subtotal, Local Revenues ............................................................. 5,492,543 ........................ 5,492,543 

Federal and Other Sources: 

Federal Payments .............................................................................. ........................ 36,400 36,400 

Federal Grants .................................................................................. ........................ 2,001,522 2,001,522 

Private Grants ................................................................................... ........................ 6,850 6,850 

Subtotal, Federal Sources Revenues ............................................ ........................ 2,044,772 2,044,772 

Other Financing Sources: Lottery Transfer ................................................ 72,100 ........................ 72,100 

Total General Operating Fund Revenues ..................................... 5,564,643 2,044,772 7,609,415 

Expenditures 

Current Operating: 

Governmental Direction and Support ............................................... 384,759 157,746 542,505 

Economic Development and Regulation ........................................... 409,392 133,742 543,134 

Public Safety and Justice ................................................................. 943,295 7,398 950,693 

Public Education System .................................................................. 1,223,971 226,462 1,450,433 

Human Support Services .................................................................. 1,423,138 1,500,033 2,923,171 

Public Works ..................................................................................... 405,318 19,391 424,709 

Financing and Other ......................................................................... 586,296 ........................ 586,296 

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

Lease Purchase Costs ....................................................................... 43,955 ........................ 43,955 

Subtotal, Operating Expenditures ................................................ 5,470,124 2,044,772 7,514,896 

Paygo Capital .................................................................................... 87,987 ........................ 87,987 

Transfer to Trust Fund for Post-Employment Benefits .................... 4,700 ........................ 4,700 

Total General Operating Fund Expenditures ................................ 5,562,811 2,044,772 7,607,583 

Operating Margin, Budget Basis ...................................................... 1,832 ........................ 1,832 
35 

ENTERPRISE FUNDS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY ................................................................... 295,710 311,642 .................... 311,642 311,642 ...................... 311,642 ∂15,932 ....................WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT .............................................................................. 50,512 143,174 .................... 143,174 143,174 ...................... 143,174 ∂92,662 ....................STORM WATER .............................................................................................. 6,673 7,000 .................... 7,000 7,000 ...................... 7,000 ∂327 ....................D.C. LOTTERY AND CHARITABLE GAMES CONTROL BOARD ......................... 251,000 256,000 .................... 256,000 256,000 ...................... 256,000 ∂5,000 ....................SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT COMMISSION ............................................... 339,630 195,314 .................... 195,314 195,314 ...................... 195,314 ¥144,316 ....................D.C. RETIREMENT BOARD ............................................................................ 30,078 34,423 .................... 34,423 34,423 ...................... 34,423 ∂4,345 ....................CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES ........................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................WASHINGTON CONVENTION CENTER AUTHORITY ......................................... 78,900 80,238 .................... 80,238 80,238 ...................... 80,238 ∂1,338 ....................NATIONAL CAPITAL REVITALIZATION CORPORATION ..................................... 52,731 51,592 .................... 51,592 51,592 ...................... 51,592 ¥1,139 ....................UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA .............................................. 102,200 110,259 10,163 100,095 110,259 (10,163 ) 100,095 ∂8,058 ....................D.C. OFFICE OF PERSONAL AGENCY TRUST FUND ....................................... 1,100 1,265 .................... 1,265 1,265 ...................... 1,265 ∂165 ....................D.C. PUBLIC LIBRARY TRUST FUNDS ........................................................... 17 17 .................... 17 17 ...................... 17 .................... ....................UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND ....................................................... 180,000 180,000 .................... 180,000 180,000 ...................... 180,000 .................... ....................ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT CORPORATION ..................................................... 8,200 5,000 .................... 5,000 5,000 ...................... 5,000 ¥3,200 ....................HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND ........................................................... .................... 120,418 .................... 120,418 120,418 ...................... 120,418 ∂120,418 ....................

Total, Enterprise and Other Funds ................................................. 1,396,751 1,496,341 10,163 1,486,178 1,496,341 (10,163 ) 1,486,178 ∂99,591 ....................

FINANCING AND OTHER 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

RESERVE ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................REPAYMENT OF LOANS AND INTEREST ........................................................ 370,778 405,114 .................... 405,114 405,114 ...................... 405,114 ∂34,336 ....................REPAYMENT OF GENERAL FUND DEFICIT ..................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................SHORT-TERM BORROWINGS ......................................................................... 5,500 8,000 .................... 8,000 8,000 ...................... 8,000 ∂2,500 ....................INAUGURAL EXPENSES ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................
36 

FINANCING AND OTHER—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION ................................................................ 15,000 33,225 2,000 31,225 33,225 (2,000 ) 31,225 ∂18,225 ....................SETTLEMENTS AND JUDGMENTS ................................................................... 20,655 15,655 .................... 15,655 15,655 ...................... 15,655 ¥5,000 ....................WILSON BUILDING ........................................................................................ 3,740 4,211 .................... 4,211 4,211 ...................... 4,211 ∂471 ....................WORKFORCE INVESTMENTS .......................................................................... 61,110 38,500 .................... 38,500 38,500 ...................... 38,500 ¥22,610 ....................TOBACCO TRUST FUND ................................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................NON-DEPARTMENTAL .................................................................................... 37,286 45,942 .................... 45,942 45,942 ...................... 45,942 ∂8,656 ....................EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SECURITY FUND ............................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................ONE-TIME EXPENDITURES ............................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) PROGRAM ............................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................CASH RESERVE ............................................................................................ 50,000 50,000 .................... 50,000 50,000 ...................... 50,000 .................... ....................GRANT DISALLOWANCE ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ....................EQUIPMENT LEASE OPERATING .................................................................... 35,441 48,635 4,680 43,955 48,635 (4,680 ) 43,955 ∂13,194 ....................EMERGENCY AND CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUNDS ..................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................PAY-GO CONTINGENCY ................................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................PAY-GO CAPITAL ........................................................................................... 262,323 87,987 .................... 87,987 87,987 ...................... 87,987 ¥174,336 ....................DEBT SERVICE—ISSUANCE COSTS .............................................................. 40,000 30,000 .................... 30,000 30,000 ...................... 30,000 ¥10,000 ....................SCHOOLS MODERNIZATION FUND ................................................................. 12,208 1,650 .................... 1,650 1,650 ...................... 1,650 ¥10,558 ....................DISTRICT RETIREE HEALTH CONTRIBUTION ................................................. 138,000 4,700 .................... 4,700 4,700 ...................... 4,700 ¥133,300 ....................BASEBALL ..................................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................REPAYMENT OF REVENUE BONDS ................................................................ .................... 6,000 .................... 6,000 6,000 ...................... 6,000 ∂6,000 ....................

Total, Financing and Other ............................................................ 1,052,040 779,618 6,680 772,938 779,618 (6,680 ) 772,938 ¥272,422 ....................
37 

PUBLIC WORKS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ................................................................. 115,530 136,012 26,896 109,115 136,012 (26,896 ) 109,115 ∂20,481 ....................DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ............................................................. 39,995 42,300 235 42,066 42,300 (235 ) 42,066 ∂2,305 ....................DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ............................................................. 46,530 42,931 .................... 42,931 42,931 ...................... 42,931 ¥3,599 ....................DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT .................................................. .................... 25,771 457 25,314 25,771 (457 ) 25,314 ∂25,771 ....................D.C. TAXI CAB COMMISSION ........................................................................ 1,362 1,516 .................... 1,516 1,516 ...................... 1,516 ∂154 ....................WASHINGTON METRO AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION ..................................... 110 110 .................... 110 110 ...................... 110 .................... ....................WASHINGTON METRO AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY ........................................ 187,632 198,487 .................... 198,487 198,487 ...................... 198,487 ∂10,855 ....................SCHOOL TRANSIT SUBSIDY .......................................................................... 5,169 5,169 .................... 5,169 5,169 ...................... 5,169 .................... ....................

Total, Public Works ......................................................................... 396,329 452,296 27,588 424,708 452,296 (27,588 ) 424,708 ∂55,968 ....................

HUMAN SUPPORT SERVICES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ............................................................ 414,015 452,322 8,755 443,567 452,322 (8,755 ) 443,567 ∂38,306 ....................CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES AGENCY ....................................................... 238,495 257,406 49,466 207,940 257,406 (49,466 ) 207,940 ∂18,911 ....................DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH ............................................................... 229,545 220,863 39,045 181,818 220,863 (39,045 ) 181,818 ¥8,682 ....................DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ............................................................................. 1,731,976 1,884,580 4,822 1,879,758 1,884,580 (4,822 ) 1,879,758 ∂152,604 ....................DEPT OF PARKS AND RECREATION .............................................................. 51,340 52,302 7,584 44,718 52,302 (7,584 ) 44,718 ∂962 ....................OFFICE ON AGING ......................................................................................... 21,415 23,470 250 23,220 23,470 (250 ) 23,220 ∂2,054 ....................PBC TRANSITION .......................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND ....................................................... 7,124 5,800 .................... 5,800 5,800 ...................... 5,800 ¥1,324 ....................DISABILITY COMPENSATION FUND ................................................................ 30,281 30,280 .................... 30,280 30,280 ...................... 30,280 ¥1 ....................OFFICE OF HUMAN RIGHTS .......................................................................... 5,032 2,725 .................... 2,725 2,725 ...................... 2,725 ¥2,307 ....................OFFICE ON LATINO AFFAIRS ......................................................................... 4,485 4,247 .................... 4,247 4,247 ...................... 4,247 ¥238 ....................D.C. ENERGY OFFICE .................................................................................... 21,147 27,548 6,000 21,548 27,548 (6,000 ) 21,548 ∂6,401 ....................
38 

HUMAN SUPPORT SERVICES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

CHILDREN AND YOUTH INVESTMENT FUND .................................................. 8,068 8,507 .................... 8,507 8,507 ...................... 8,507 ∂439 ....................BROWNFIELD REMEDIATION ......................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER AFFAIRS ....................................................... 540 813 .................... 813 813 ...................... 813 ∂274 ....................OFFICE OF VETERANS AFFAIRS .................................................................... 251 302 .................... 302 302 ...................... 302 ∂51 ....................MEDICAID RESERVE ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................INCENTIVES FOR ADOPTION OF CHILDREN .................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH REHABILITATION SERVICES .................................. 61,327 68,584 655 67,929 68,584 (655 ) 67,929 ∂7,257 ....................

Total, Human Support Services ...................................................... 2,825,040 3,039,748 116,576 2,923,171 3,039,748 (116,576 ) 2,923,171 ∂214,708 ....................

PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS ................................................................................. 1,046,064 1,031,339 52,239 979,100 1,031,339 (52,239 ) 979,100 ¥14,725 ....................TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT FUND .................................................................... 15,500 14,600 .................... 14,600 14,600 ...................... 14,600 ¥900 ....................STATE EDUCATION OFFICE ........................................................................... 90,987 54,023 .................... 54,023 54,023 ...................... 54,023 ¥36,964 ....................D.C. PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS ................................................................. 239,284 266,066 .................... 266,066 266,066 ...................... 266,066 ∂26,781 ....................UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA .............................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBSIDY ............................... 57,873 59,546 .................... 59,546 59,546 ...................... 59,546 ∂1,673 ....................D.C. PUBLIC LIBRARY .................................................................................. 34,473 42,297 299 41,998 42,297 (299 ) 41,998 ∂7,824 ....................COMMISSION ON ARTS AND HUMANITIES .................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EDUCATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND ......................... 21,000 .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ¥21,000 ....................DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARTER SCHOOLS INVESTMENT FUND ............... 4,200 .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... ¥4,200 ....................

Total, Public Education System ..................................................... 1,509,381 1,467,871 52,538 1,415,333 1,467,871 (52,538 ) 1,415,333 ¥41,510 ....................
39 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT .......................................................... 377,488 437,129 2,566 434,562 437,129 (2,566 ) 434,562 ∂59,641 ....................FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT ......................................... 156,268 169,790 559 169,231 169,790 (559 ) 169,231 ∂13,522 ....................POLICE OFFICERS’ AND FIRE FIGHTERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM .................. 117,500 140,100 .................... 140,100 140,100 ...................... 140,100 ∂22,600 ....................DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS .................................................................. 132,686 137,590 442 137,148 137,590 (442 ) 137,148 ∂4,905 ....................NATIONAL GUARD ......................................................................................... 3,428 4,493 .................... 4,493 4,493 ...................... 4,493 ∂1,065 ....................D.C. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ................................................... 5,495 6,695 .................... 6,695 6,695 ...................... 6,695 ∂1,201 ....................COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL DISABILITIES AND TENURE ................................ 218 233 .................... 233 233 ...................... 233 ∂15 ....................JUDICIAL NOMINATION COMMISSION ............................................................ 126 131 .................... 131 131 ...................... 131 ∂5 ....................OFFICE OF POLICE COMPLAINTS .................................................................. 2,095 2,312 .................... 2,312 2,312 ...................... 2,312 ∂217 ....................D.C. SENTENCING COMMISSION ................................................................... 662 700 .................... 700 700 ...................... 700 ∂38 ....................OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER ................................................. 9,265 8,989 .................... 8,989 8,989 ...................... 8,989 ¥276 ....................OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS ....................................................... 7,057 7,335 1,164 6,171 7,335 (1,164 ) 6,171 ∂278 ....................CORRECTIONS INFORMATION COUNCIL ........................................................ 155 118 .................... 118 118 ...................... 118 ¥37 ....................CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL ............................................... 1,563 289 .................... 289 289 ...................... 289 ¥1,274 ....................FORENSICS LABORATORY TECHNICIAN TRAINING PROGRAM ....................... 800 1,238 .................... 1,238 1,238 ...................... 1,238 ∂438 ....................OFFICE OF UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS ........................................................ 31,662 36,982 .................... 36,982 36,982 ...................... 36,982 ∂5,320 ....................EMERGENCY AND DISASTER RESPONSE ...................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS .................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................

Total, Public Safety and Justice .................................................... 846,466 954,124 4,731 949,393 954,124 (4,731 ) 949,393 ∂107,657 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY MAYOR OF PLANNING ............................................ 37,980 85,661 .................... 85,661 85,661 ...................... 85,661 ∂47,681 ....................OFFICE OF PLANNING ................................................................................... 6,673 7,168 80 7,088 7,168 (80 ) 7,088 ∂494 ....................
40 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

OFFICE OF LOCAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ............................................... 1,438 2,662 .................... 2,662 2,662 ...................... 2,662 ∂1,225 ....................OFFICE OF MOTION PICTURES AND TELEVISION .......................................... 579 594 .................... 594 594 ...................... 594 ∂15 ....................OFFICE OF ZONING ....................................................................................... 2,902 2,998 .................... 2,998 2,998 ...................... 2,998 ∂96 ....................DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ..................... 210,710 108,712 .................... 108,712 108,712 ...................... 108,712 ¥101,998 ....................DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES .................................................. 93,048 99,016 577 98,439 99,016 (577 ) 98,439 ∂5,968 ....................BOARD OF APPEALS AND REVIEW ................................................................ .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................BOARD OF REAL PROPERTY ASSES. AND APPEALS ..................................... 431 563 .................... 563 563 ...................... 563 ∂132 ....................DEPT CONSUMER AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS ............................................. 40,251 38,693 .................... 38,693 38,693 ...................... 38,693 ¥1,558 ....................COMMISSION ON ARTS AND HUMANITIES .................................................... 9,918 10,717 20 10,697 10,717 (20 ) 10,697 ∂799 ....................ALCOHOL BEVERAGE REGULATION ADMINISTRATION ................................... 4,702 4,533 .................... 4,533 4,533 ...................... 4,533 ¥168 ....................DEPT. OF BANKING AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ...................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION .................................................................... 7,976 8,001 .................... 8,001 8,001 ...................... 8,001 ∂25 ....................OFFICE OF THE PEOPLE’S COUNSEL ............................................................ 4,306 4,596 .................... 4,596 4,596 ...................... 4,596 ∂290 ....................DEPT. OF INSURANCE, SECURITIES AND BANKING ...................................... 14,158 16,184 .................... 16,184 16,184 ...................... 16,184 ∂2,025 ....................OFFICE OF CABLE TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ....................... 5,054 5,566 .................... 5,566 5,566 ...................... 5,566 ∂512 ....................HOUSING AUTHORITY SUBSIDY .................................................................... 4,003 22,730 .................... 22,730 22,730 ...................... 22,730 ∂18,727 ....................ANACOSTIA WATERFRONT CORP. SUBSIDY .................................................. 8,200 5,000 .................... 5,000 5,000 ...................... 5,000 ¥3,200 ....................HOUSING PRODUCTION TRUST FUND SUBSIDY ............................................ .................... 120,418 .................... 120,418 120,418 ...................... 120,418 ∂120,418 ....................

Total, Economic Development and Regulation .............................. 452,328 543,812 677 543,135 543,812 (677 ) 543,135 ∂91,484 ....................

GOVERNMENTAL DIRECTION AND SUPPORT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency/activity 

Approved 

fiscal year 

2006 

Fiscal year 

2007 request Intra-District 

Fiscal year 

2007 less 

Intra-district 

Committee 

recommendation Intra-District 

Committee 

recommendation 

Bill compared with— 

Fiscal year 

2006 

approved 

Fiscal year 

2007 request 

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ................................................... 14,038 14,667 .................... 14,667 14,667 ...................... 14,667 ∂629 ....................OFFICE OF THE D.C. AUDITOR ...................................................................... 2,008 2,178 .................... 2,178 2,178 ...................... 2,178 ∂170 ....................
41 

ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSIONS .................................................. 976 994 .................... 994 994 ...................... 994 ∂18 ....................OFFICE OF THE MAYOR ................................................................................ 13,454 14,615 114 14,501 14,615 (114 ) 14,501 ∂1,162 ....................OFFICE OF SECRETARY ................................................................................ 4,241 4,294 .................... 4,294 4,294 ...................... 4,294 ∂53 ....................CUSTOMER SERVICE OPERATIONS ............................................................... 1,048 1,058 695 363 1,058 (695 ) 363 ∂9 ....................OFFICE OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR ................................................................. 173,880 152,221 672 151,550 152,221 (672 ) 151,550 ¥21,659 ....................OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT .................................................................... 2,365 2,067 500 1,567 2,067 (500 ) 1,567 ¥298 ....................OFFICE OF PERSONNEL ................................................................................ 13,544 14,622 3,014 11,608 14,622 (3,014 ) 11,608 ∂1,077 ....................HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 2,000 2,073 .................... 2,073 2,073 ...................... 2,073 ∂73 ....................OFFICE OF FINANCE AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ................................... 200,888 242,654 231,567 11,087 242,654 (231,567 ) 11,087 ∂41,765 ....................OFFICE OF CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT ........................................... 14,642 14,004 1,783 12,221 14,004 (1,783 ) 12,221 ¥638 ....................OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER ............................................. 43,474 47,860 9,845 38,015 47,860 (9,845 ) 38,015 ∂4,386 ....................OFFICE OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ........................................................... 69,346 84,113 59,727 24,386 84,113 (59,727 ) 24,386 ∂14,768 ....................CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD ........................................................................ 806 849 .................... 849 849 ...................... 849 ∂44 ....................BOARD OF ELECTION AND ETHICS ............................................................... 5,042 5,210 .................... 5,210 5,210 ...................... 5,210 ∂167 ....................OFFICE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE ................................................................... 1,374 1,502 .................... 1,502 1,502 ...................... 1,502 ∂127 ....................PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD ........................................................ 801 881 .................... 881 881 ...................... 881 ∂80 ....................OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE APPEALS ................................................................... 1,589 1,677 .................... 1,677 1,677 ...................... 1,677 ∂88 ....................METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS ........................ 440 421 .................... 421 421 ...................... 421 ¥19 ....................OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA .... 66,275 86,787 8,924 77,863 86,787 (8,924 ) 77,863 ∂20,512 ....................OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL .......................................................... 12,942 13,727 .................... 13,727 13,727 ...................... 13,727 ∂785 ....................OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER .................................................. 124,242 154,822 3,951 150,871 154,822 (3,951 ) 150,871 ∂30,580 ....................EMERGENCY PURCHASE CARDS .................................................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ...................... .................... .................... ....................

Total, Governmental Direction and Support ................................... 769,418 863,297 320,792 542,505 863,297 (320,792 ) 542,505 ∂93,878 ....................
(42) 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Committee has modified section 104 and section 114 to allow 

the District to use locally generated funds for lobbying purposes. 

The Committee has included language to maintain a complete prohibition on the use of Federal funds for this purpose. 

The Committee has modified section 115 to allow the District to 

use locally generated revenues to support programs that provide individuals with sterile needles and syringes. This is consistent with 

a provision approved by the Senate and included in the Senate bill 

since fiscal year 2003. The Committee has included language that 

maintains a complete prohibition on the use of Federal funds for 

this purpose. 

The Committee has included language in section 127 designed to 

preserve the status quo with respect to the OCFO’s current procurement process. The OCFO currently maintains independent procurement authority from the District of Columbia’s Procurement 

Practices Act and from the Mayor’s Procurement Office. 

The Committee has included language in section 130 to clarify 

that Federal appropriations provided for the credit enhancement 

fund and direct loan fund for public charter schools do not require 

District of Columbia Council approval for the granting of loans pursuant to congressional intent. The funding and purpose for which 

the direct loan and credit enhancement funds are to be used was 

established pursuant to prior year Federal Appropriations Acts 

(Acts). These acts gave the Mayor of the District of Columbia the 

authority through the Office of Public Charter School Financing 

and Support to administer all aspects of the direct loan and credit 

enhancement funds. 

The Committee has included language in section 131 to allow 

children to continue using their private school scholarships, despite 

small changes in family income. By increasing the income threshold from 200 percent of Federal poverty level to 300 percent of Federal poverty level, students already using scholarships will be able 

to remain in the program, despite minor changes to their families’ 

income. The retention of these children will be important to ensure 

that the program evaluation will not be compromised. 

The Committee has included bill language in section 133 designed to restore, during a noncontrol year, the authority exercised 

by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer during a control year 

with respect to determining the resources necessary to effectively 

perform its duties. This authority was granted to the OCFO in the 

District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1997 during the District’s 

Control Board period (see Public Law 104–194; 110 Stat. 2375). 

The authority is also the same authority currently held by the D.C. 

Inspector General. Specifically, the language will require congressional oversight prior to any reductions in the OCFO’s annual 

budget. The language would restore for all years, the requirement 
43 

that the Mayor and Council may recommend reductions, but all reductions must be approved by Congress. This language also clarifies that the Congress must enact an express exemption through an 

amendment to the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to grant 

independence to any agency or entity within the District government from OCFO oversight. This change would forestall any future 

attempt by an agency to seek to remove itself from OCFO oversight 

through statutory interpretation. 

The Committee has included language in section 134 to acknowledge that the D.C. CFO compensation is inconsistent with compensation packages received by other District Officials. Currently, 

the D.C. CFO is compensated at a rate that is roughly 36 percent 

lower than the highest paid executive within the District. The D.C. 

CFO is compensated at a rate lower than the heads of DCPS, UDC 

and the Sports Commission, all of whom have compensation packages approved by the District’s Mayor and Council. The language 

in the bill amends the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to allow 

the CFO’s compensation to be 1.50 times the current rate. 

Committee is including bill language in section 135 to extend the 

OCFO’s service 1 year beyond the election of a Mayor in order to 

maintain stable fiscal oversight during the transition to new elected leadership. Currently the OCFO’s term expires on June 30, 2007 

which does not provide the 1-year overlap which Congress originally intended. 
(44) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

Items providing funding for fiscal year 2007 which lack authorization are as follows: 

Federal payment for emergency planning and security costs in the District of Columbia ................................... $8,533,000 

Federal payment for the Water and Sewer Authority .............................................................................................. 7,000,000 

Federal payment for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative ........................................................................................ 5,000,000 

Federal payment for transportation ......................................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Federal payment for foster care improvements ...................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Federal payment for the Office of the Chief Financial Officer ............................................................................... 5,000,000 

Federal payment for bioterrorism and forensics lab ............................................................................................... 4,500,000 

Federal payment for marriage development ............................................................................................................ 4,000,000 

Federal payment for a new central library .............................................................................................................. 15,000,000 

Federal payment for Navy Yard Metro improvements ............................................................................................. 4,000,000 

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

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 13, 2006, the 

Committee ordered reported, en bloc: H.R. 5672, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and 

related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and 

for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title; and S. 3660, an original bill 

making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in whole or in part against the 

revenues of said District for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2007, and for other purposes; with each bill subject to further 

amendment and each subject to the budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 27–0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Cochran 

Mr. Stevens 

Mr. Domenici 

Mr. Bond 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Burns 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Gregg 

Mr. Bennett 
45 

Mr. Craig 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. DeWine 

Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Allard 

Mr. Byrd 

Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Reid 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the Committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by this bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006, PUBLIC LAW 109–115 

* * * * * * * 

DIVISION B—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS 

ACT, 2007 

That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the District of Columbia 

and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, 

and for other purposes, namely: 
46 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FEDERAL FUNDS

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

For a Federal payment for a school improvement program in 

the District of Columbia, $40,000,000, to be allocated as follows: for 

the District of Columbia Public Schools, $13,000,000 to improve 

public school education in the District of Columbia; for the State 

Education Office, ø$13,000,000 to expand quality public charter 

schools in the District of Columbia, to remain available until September 30, 2007;¿ $13,000,000 to expand quality public charter 

schools in the District of Columbia, of which $7,000,000, to remain 

available until September 30, 2007, and $4,000,000, which shall be 

for the direct loan fund, and $2,000,000, which shall be for credit 

enhancement, shall remain available until expended; for the Secretary of the Department of Education, $14,000,000 to provide opportunity scholarships for students in the District of Columbia in 

accordance with division C, title III of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108–199; 118 Stat. 126), of 

which up to $1,000,000 may be used to administer and fund assessments. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of budget totals for 2007: Subcommittee on the District of Columbia: 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 597 597 NA 1 578 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2007 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 511 

2008 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 55 

2009 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 19 

2010 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 12 

2011 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... ....................

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2007 ......................................................................................... NA 381 NA 356 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 
47 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with 

(∂ or ¥) 

2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

TITLE I 

FEDERAL FUNDS 

Federal payment for Resident Tuition Support ...................................................... 32,868 35,100 35,100 33,200 ∂332 ¥1,900 ¥1,900 Federal payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the District of 

Columbia ............................................................................................................ 13,365 8,533 8,533 8,533 ¥4,832 .......................... ..........................

Federal payment to the District of Columbia Courts ............................................ 216,723 196,629 219,629 206,629 ¥10,094 ∂10,000 ¥13,000 Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts ................................................ 43,560 43,475 43,475 43,475 ¥85 .......................... ..........................Federal payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the 

District of Columbia .......................................................................................... 169,839 181,653 181,653 183,653 ∂13,814 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 

Federal payment to the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia .... 29,535 32,710 32,710 32,710 ∂3,175 .......................... ..........................Federal payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority ........... 6,930 7,000 7,000 7,000 ∂70 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative ...................................... 2,970 .......................... .......................... 5,000 ∂2,030 ∂5,000 ∂5,000 Federal payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council ........................... 1,287 1,300 1,300 1,300 ∂13 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for Transportation Assistance .................................................... 990 .......................... .......................... 1,000 ∂10 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Federal payment for Foster Care Improvements ................................................... 1,980 .......................... .......................... 2,000 ∂20 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 Federal payment to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of 

Columbia ............................................................................................................ 28,908 .......................... 5,000 5,000 ¥23,908 ∂5,000 ..........................

Federal payment for School Improvement ............................................................. 39,600 40,800 40,800 40,000 ∂400 ¥800 ¥800 Federal payment for Bioterrorism and Forensics Labs ......................................... 4,950 .......................... .......................... 4,500 ¥450 ∂4,500 ∂4,500 Federal payment for the National Guard Youth Challenge in the District of Columbia ................................................................................................................ 495 .......................... .......................... .......................... ¥495 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for Marriage Development Accounts .......................................... 2,970 .......................... .......................... 4,000 ∂1,030 ∂4,000 ∂4,000 
48 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2006 appropria- tion Budget estimate House allowance Committee rec- ommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with 

(∂ or ¥) 

2006 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance 

Federal payment for Navy Yard Metro Station ...................................................... .......................... 20,000 .......................... 4,000 ∂4,000 ¥16,000 ∂4,000 Federal payment for Central Library/branch locations .......................................... .......................... 30,000 .......................... 15,000 ∂15,000 ¥15,000 ∂15,000 

Total, Federal funds to the District of Columbia .................................... 596,970 597,200 575,200 597,000 ∂30 ¥200 ∂21,800 

Æ