datamatters24/research-document-archive huggingface dataset:
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 433
AN ACT
To restore the management and personnel
authority of the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 433
AN ACT
To restore the management and personnel authority of the
Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia
Management Restoration Act of 1999’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) Among the major problems of the District
of Columbia government has been the failure to
clearly delineate accountability.
(2) The statute establishing the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority proved necessary to enable the
District to regain financial stability and manage-
ment control.
(3) The District has performed significantly
better than the Congress had anticipated at the time
of the passage of the Authority statute.
(4) The necessity for a financial authority has
resulted in a diffusion of responsibility between the
Mayor, the Council, and the Authority pending the
time when the District government would assume
the home rule status quo ante.
(5) This lack of clear lines of reporting author-
ity, in turn, has led to some redundancy and confu-
sion about accountability and authority.
(6) The Authority statute requires the Author-
ity to ‘‘ensure the most efficient and effective deliv-
ery of services, including public safety services, by
the District government’’ and to ‘‘assist the District
government in * * * ensuring the appropriate and
efficient delivery of services’’.
(7) With the coming of a new administration
led by Mayor Anthony Williams, the Authority has
taken the first step to ensure the accountability that
will be necessary at the expiration of the control pe-
riod by delegating day-to-day operations over city
agencies previously under control of the Authority to
the Mayor.
(8) The Congress agrees that the best way to
ensure clear and unambiguous authority and full ac-
countability is for the Mayor to have full authority
over city agencies so that citizens, the Authority,
and the Congress can ascertain responsibility.
(9) The transition of authority to the new ad-
ministration will take nothing from the Authority’s
power to intervene during a control period.
SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL
AUTHORITY OF MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of title XI of the Bal-
anced Budget Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 47–395.1 et
seq.) is repealed.
(b) 
CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Section
1604(f)(2)(B) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105–34; 111 Stat. 1099) is repealed.
Passed the House of Representatives February 9,
1999.
Attest:
Clerk.
H. R. 433
One Hundred Sixth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine
An Act
To restore the management and personnel authority of the Mayor of the District
of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia Management
Restoration Act of 1999’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) Among the major problems of the District of Columbia
government has been the failure to clearly delineate account-
ability.
(2) The statute establishing the District of Columbia Finan-
cial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
proved necessary to enable the District to regain financial
stability and management control.
(3) The District has performed significantly better than
the Congress had anticipated at the time of the passage of
the Authority statute.
(4) The necessity for a financial authority has resulted
in a diffusion of responsibility between the Mayor, the Council,
and the Authority pending the time when the District govern-
ment would assume the home rule status quo ante.
(5) This lack of clear lines of reporting authority, in turn,
has led to some redundancy and confusion about accountability
and authority.
(6) The Authority statute requires the Authority to ‘‘ensure
the most efficient and effective delivery of services, including
public safety services, by the District government’’ and to ‘‘assist
the District government in * * * ensuring the appropriate
and efficient delivery of services’’.
(7) With the coming of a new administration led by Mayor
Anthony Williams, the Authority has taken the first step to
ensure the accountability that will be necessary at the expira-
tion of the control period by delegating day-to-day operations
over city agencies previously under control of the Authority
to the Mayor.
(8) The Congress agrees that the best way to ensure clear
and unambiguous authority and full accountability is for the
Mayor to have full authority over city agencies so that citizens,
the Authority, and the Congress can ascertain responsibility.
H. R. 433—2
(9) The transition of authority to the new administration
will take nothing from the Authority’s power to intervene dur-
ing a control period.
SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL AUTHORITY
OF MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of title XI of the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 47–395.1 et seq.) is repealed.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1604(f )(2)(B) of the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–34; 111 Stat. 1099)
is repealed.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR FILING A FRIVOLOUS
SUIT AGAINST AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF
THE UNITED STATES OR OF A STATE OR PO-
LITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 163 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol-
lowing:
‘‘§ 2466. Additional penalty for filing a frivolous civil
suit against an officer or employee of the
United States or of any agency of a State
or political subdivision thereof
‘‘In addition to any other remedy provided by law,
should the court find that any civil action brought person-
ally against any officer or employee described in section
1114 of title 18, United States Code, or any officer or
employee of any agency of a State, or political subdivision
thereof, is frivolous and was brought with intent to intimi-
date or obstruct such officer or employee in the perform-
ance of such officer’s or employee’s official duties, or with
intent to retaliate against such officer or employee on ac-
count of the performance of such duties, the court shall,
besides dismissing such action, assess against the party
making such claim a civil penalty payable to the United
States of not less than $2,500 or more than $25,000.’’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
at the beginning of chapter 163 of title 28, United States
I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 433
To restore the management and personnel authority of the Mayor of the
District of Columbia.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 2, 1999
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia (for himself, Ms. NORTON, and Mrs. MORELLA) intro-
duced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Govern-
ment Reform
A BILL
To restore the management and personnel authority of the
Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia
Management Restoration Act of 1999’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) Among the major problems of the District
of Columbia government has been the failure to
clearly delineate accountability.
(2) The statute establishing the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority proved necessary to enable the
District to regain financial stability and manage-
ment control.
(3) The District has performed significantly
better than the Congress had anticipated at the time
of the passage of the Authority statute.
(4) The necessity for a financial authority has
resulted in a diffusion of responsibility between the
Mayor, the Council, and the Authority pending the
time when the District government would assume
the home rule status quo ante.
(5) This lack of clear lines of reporting author-
ity, in turn, has led to some redundancy and confu-
sion about accountability and authority.
(6) The Authority statute requires the Author-
ity to ‘‘ensure the most efficient and effective deliv-
ery of services, including public safety services, by
the District government’’ and to ‘‘assist the District
government in . . . ensuring the appropriate and ef-
ficient delivery of services’’.
(7) With the coming of a new administration
led by Mayor Anthony Williams, the Authority has
taken the first step to ensure the accountability that
will be necessary at the expiration of the control pe-
riod by delegating day-to-day operations over city
agencies previously under control of the Authority to
the Mayor.
(8) The Congress agrees that the best way to
ensure clear and unambiguous authority and full ac-
countability is for the Mayor to have full authority
over city agencies so that citizens, the Authority,
and the Congress can ascertain responsibility.
(9) The transition of authority to the new ad-
ministration will take nothing from the Authority’s
power to intervene during a control period.
SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL
AUTHORITY OF MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of title XI of the Bal-
anced Budget Act of 1997 (DC Code, sec. 47–395.1 et
seq.) is repealed.
(b) 
CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Section
1604(f)(2)(B) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105–34; 111 Stat. 1099) is repealed.
Æ
(1) LEGAL CHALLENGE.—No State law, or the
application thereof, may be declared invalid as to
any person or circumstance on the ground that the
provision or application is inconsistent with the
Agreement, except in an action brought by the
United States for the purpose of declaring such law
or application invalid.
(2) DEFINITION OF STATE LAW.—For purposes
of this subsection, the term ‘‘State law’’ includes—
(A) any law of a political subdivision of a
State; and
(B) any State law regulating or taxing the
business of insurance.
(c) EFFECT OF AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO PRI-
VATE REMEDIES.—No person other than the United
States—
(1) shall have any cause of action or defense
under the Agreement or by virtue of congressional
approval thereof; or
(2) may challenge, in any action brought under
any provision of law, any action or inaction by any
department, agency, or other instrumentality of the
United States, any State, or any political subdivision
of a State, on the ground that such action or inac-
tion is inconsistent with the Agreement.
SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF
ENTRY INTO FORCE AND INITIAL REGULA-
TIONS.
(a) IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS.—
(1) PROCLAMATION
AUTHORITY.—After the
date of the enactment of this Act—
(A) the President may proclaim such ac-
tions, and
(B) other appropriate officers of the
United States Government may issue such reg-
ulations,
as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of
this Act, or amendment made by this Act, that takes
effect on the date the Agreement enters into force
is appropriately implemented on such date, but no
such proclamation or regulation may have an effec-
tive date earlier than the date the Agreement enters
into force.
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE OF CERTAIN PROCLAIMED
ACTIONS.—Any action proclaimed by the President
under the authority of this Act that is not subject
to the consultation and layover provisions under sec-
tion 104 may not take effect before the 15th day
after the date on which the text of the proclamation
is published in the Federal Register.
I 
108TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 5182
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify the mission and 
responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with respect 
to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties, and for other purposes. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2004
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi (for himself, Mr. TURNER of Texas, Mrs. 
CHRISTENSEN, Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, 
Ms. NORTON, and Mr. MEEK of Florida) introduced the following bill; 
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition 
to the Select Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subse-
quently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 
A BILL 
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to clarify 
the mission and responsibilities of the Department of 
Homeland Security with respect to the protection of civil 
rights and civil liberties, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeland Security 
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004’’.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia
Management Restoration Act of 1999’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) Among the major problems of the District
of Columbia government has been the failure to
clearly delineate accountability.
(2) The statute establishing the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority proved necessary to enable the
District to regain financial stability and manage-
ment control.
(3) The District has performed significantly
better than the Congress had anticipated at the time
of the passage of the Authority statute.
(4) The necessity for a financial authority has
resulted in a diffusion of responsibility between the
Mayor, the Council, and the Authority pending the
time when the District government would assume
the home rule status quo ante.
(5) This lack of clear lines of reporting author-
ity, in turn, has led to some redundancy and confu-
sion about accountability and authority.
(6) The Authority statute requires the Author-
ity to ‘‘ensure the most efficient and effective deliv-
ery of services, including public safety services, by
the District government’’ and to ‘‘assist the District
government in * * * ensuring the appropriate and
efficient delivery of services’’.
(7) With the coming of a new administration
led by Mayor Anthony Williams, the Authority has
taken the first step to ensure the accountability that
will be necessary at the expiration of the control pe-
riod by delegating day-to-day operations over city
agencies previously under control of the Authority to
the Mayor.
(8) The Congress agrees that the best way to
ensure clear and unambiguous authority and full ac-
countability is for the Mayor to have full authority
over city agencies so that citizens, the Authority,
and the Congress can ascertain responsibility.
(9) The transition of authority to the new ad-
ministration will take nothing from the Authority’s
power to intervene during a control period.
SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL
AUTHORITY OF MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of title XI of the Bal-
anced Budget Act of 1997 (D.C. Code, sec. 47–395.1 et
seq.) is repealed.
(b) 
CONFORMING
AMENDMENT.—Section
1604(f)(2)(B) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105–34; 111 Stat. 1099) is repealed.
Passed the House of Representatives February 9,
1999.
Attest:
JEFF TRANDAHL,
Clerk.
I
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4340
To simplify Federal oil and gas revenue distributions, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 13, 2000
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mrs. CUBIN, and Mr. SKEEN) intro-
duced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Re-
sources
A BILL
To simplify Federal oil and gas revenue distributions, and
for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mineral Revenue Pay-
ments Clarification Act of 2000’’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Subtitle C of title X of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–66)
changed the sharing of onshore mineral revenues
and revenues from geothermal steam from a 50:50
split between the Federal Government and the
States to a complicated formula, which provides that
‘‘50 percent of the portion of the enacted appropria-
tion of the Department of the Interior and any other
agency during the preceding fiscal year allocable to
the administration of all laws providing for the leas-
ing of any onshore lands or interest in land owned
by the United States for the production of the same
types of minerals leasable under this Act or of geo-
thermal steam, and to enforcement of such laws,
shall be deducted from the receipts derived under
those laws in approximately equal amounts each
month (subject to paragraph (4)) prior to the divi-
sion and distribution of such receipts between the
States and the United States.’’.
(2) The system put in place by this change in
law has proved difficult to administer and has given
rise to disputes between the Federal Government
and the States as to the nature of allocable ex-
penses. Federal accounting systems have proven to
be poorly suited to breaking down administrative
costs in the manner required by the law. Different
Federal agencies implementing this law have used
varying methodologies to identify allocable costs, re-
sulting in an inequitable distribution of costs during
fiscal years 1994 through 1996. In November, 1997,
the Inspector General of the Department of the In-
terior found that ‘‘the congressionally approved
method for cost sharing deductions effective in fiscal
year 1997 may not accurately compute the deduc-
tions.’’.
(3) Given the complexity and administrative
burden involved, a return to the sharing formula as
last amended by Public Law 100–203 is justified.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF THE MINERAL LEASING ACT.
Section 35(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C.
191(b)) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(b) In determining the amount of payments to the
States under this section, the amount of such payments
shall not be reduced by any administrative or other costs
incurred by the United States.’’.
Æ
I
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4341
To authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning,
design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Or-
egon, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 13, 2000
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on Resources
A BILL
To authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in
the planning, design, and construction of the Bend Feed
Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bend Feed Canal Pipe-
line Project Act of 2000’’.
SEC. 2. FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.
(a) The Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with
the Tumalo Irrigation District (referred to in this section
as the ‘‘District’’), is authorized to participate in the plan-
ning, design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal
Pipeline Project, Oregon.
(b) The Federal share of the costs of the project shall
not exceed 50 percent of the total, and shall be non-
reimbursable. The District shall receive credit from the
Secretary toward the District’s share of the project for
any funds the District has provided toward the design,
planning, or construction prior to the enactment of this
Act.
(c) Funds received under this Act shall not be consid-
ered a supplemental or additional benefit under the Act
of June 17, 1902 (82 Stat. 388), and all Acts amendatory
thereof or supplementary thereto.
(d) Title to facilities constructed under this Act will
be held by the District.
(e) Operations and maintenance of the facilities will
be the responsibility of the District.
(f) There are authorized to be appropriated
$2,500,000 for the Federal share of the activities author-
ized under this Act.
(g) The Bureau of Reclamation shall not charge the
District more than one percent of the project cost for car-
rying out administrative or oversight activities under this
Act.
Æ
I
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4342
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the excise tax
on heavy truck tires.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 13, 2000
Mr. WATKINS (for himself and Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify
the excise tax on heavy truck tires.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SIMPLIFICATION OF EXCISE TAX ON HEAVY
TRUCK TIRES.
(a) TAX BASED
ON TIRE LOAD CAPACITY NOT
WEIGHT.—Subsection (a) of section 4071 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to imposition of tax on
tires) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(a) IMPOSITION AND RATE OF TAX.—There is here-
by imposed on tires of the type used on highway vehicles,
if wholly or in part made of rubber, sold by the manufac-
turer, producer, or importer a tax equal to 8 cents for
each 10 pounds of the tire load capacity in excess of 3500
pounds.’’
(b) TIRE LOAD CAPACITY.—Subsection (c) of section
4071 of such Code is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(c) TIRE LOAD CAPACITY.—For purposes of this
chapter, tire load capacity is the maximum load rating la-
beled on the tire pursuant to 49 CFR 571.109 or 49 CFR
571.119. In the case of any tire that is marked for both
single and dual loads, the higher of the 2 shall be used
for purposes of this section.’’
(c) TIRES TO WHICH TAX APPLIES.—Subsection (b)
of section 4072 of such Code (defining tires of the type
used on highway vehicles) is amended by striking ‘‘tires
of a type’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘tires—
‘‘(1) of the type used on—
‘‘(A) motor vehicles which are highway ve-
hicles, or
‘‘(B) vehicles of the type used in connec-
tion with motor vehicles which are highway ve-
hicles, and
‘‘(2) marked for highway use pursuant to 49
CFR 571.109 or 49 CFR 571.119.’’
(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
this section shall take effect on January 1 of the first cal-
endar year which begins more than 30 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
Æ
I
106TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
H. R. 4344
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit H–2A workers
from bringing law suits against employers except in the State in which
the employer resides or has its principal place of business.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
APRIL 13, 2000
Mr. WHITFIELD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit
H–2A workers from bringing law suits against employers
except in the State in which the employer resides or
has its principal place of business.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON VENUE OF SUITS BROUGHT
AGAINST FARMERS BY H–2A WORKERS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 218(h) of the Immigra-
tion and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1188(h)) is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an
H–2A worker may not bring an action under State or Fed-
eral law arising out of employment authorized under this
section against the employer except in the State in which
the employer resides or has its principal place of busi-
ness.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by
subsection (a) applies to actions commenced after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
Æ