Appropriations for FY2003: District of Columbia

Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2003:
District of Columbia
Updated March 23, 2003
Eugene Boyd, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, consolidated, and continuing) bills,
rescissions, and budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget
request and is bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and
current program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Interior Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current legislative status of the
bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists
the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropri ations/apppage.shtml ].



Appropriations for FY2003: District of Columbia
Summary
On February 20, 2003, President Bush signed the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for FY2003, P.L. 108-7 (formerly H. J. Res. 2). Division C of the act
appropriates $512 million in federal funds for the District of Columbia. for fiscal year
2003. On February 13, 2003, the House and the Senate approved the conference
report (H.Rept. 108-10) accompanying H. J. Res. 2. The Senate approved an earlier
version of H.J.Res. 2, on January 23, 2003, that would have allowed the District of
Columbia to spend $5.8 billion in locally raised funds while Congress completed
action on the proposed $517 million in federal contributions to the District’s FY2003
budget. The 107th Congress failed to complete action on the District’s FY2003
Appropriations Act before it adjourned. As a consequence, Congress passed eight
continuing budget resolutions freezing District of Columbia and several other
FY2003 appropriations bills at their FY2002 level until a budget compromise could
be reached. during the 108th Congress.
On October 2, 2002, several days after the submission of a revised FY2003
budget by District officials, the House Appropriations Committee reported the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, H.R. 5521. In response to a
congressionally imposed October 1, 2002 deadline, District of Columbia officials
completed action on a revised budget for FY2003 on September 27, 2002. Passage
of an amended FY2003 budget by District officials was aimed at addressing a $323
million budget shortfall identified by the city’s chief financial officer.
On July 26, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2809, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003. The Senate and House bills
included $517 million in special federal payments to the District of Columbia, which
was significantly less than the $592 million requested by the District. The House and
Senate bills included special federal payments of $17 million for the District’s
college access program and $15 million for security and emergency preparedness
activities associated with the city’s status as the national capital. The Senate bill
included $15 million for capital infrastructure development while the House bill
included $24 million, which was less than the $96 million requested by the District.
The House and Senate bills, as reported during the 107th Congress, would have
continued to allow the District to use its local funds to administer a domestic partners
health insurance act approved by the city in 1992. Prior to the passage of the P.L.
107-96, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, Congress
prohibited the implementation of the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act. The Act
allows unmarried couples to register as domestic partners and extends health care
benefits of city employees to unrelated individuals registered as domestic partners.
P.L. 108-7, includes a provision included in the House bill prohibiting the use of
local and federal funding of a needle exchange program. The Senate bill would have
allowed the use of District funds for a needle exchange in an effort to reduce the
spread of HIV/AIDS. In addition, the final act included a provision found in both
House and Senate bills prohibiting the use of District or federal funds to prepare a
medical marijuana ballot initiative and the use of federal or District funds for
abortion services except in instance of rape or incest. This report will be updated as
warranted.



Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRSTelephone
Division
DC Education Eugene BoydG&F7-8689
DC CorrectionsJoAnne O’BryantDSP7-6819
DC CourtsSteve RutkusG&F7-7162
DC Governance and PoliticsEugene BoydG&F7-8689
DC Federal Fiscal RelationsSteve MaguireG&F7-7841
DC Oversight Eugene BoydG&F7-8689
Division abbreviations: G&F = Government and Finance Division; DSP = Domestic Social
Policy Division



Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Background ......................................................2
District of Columbia Financial Condition...........................2
Health Care Safety Net Administration.............................4
Budget Request...................................................5
FY2003: The President’s Budget Request...........................5
FY2003: District’s Budget Request................................6
FY2003: Section 302(b) Suballocation.............................6
Congressional Action on the Budget...............................6th
108 Congress............................................6
House Version of H. J. Res. 2 (formerly H.R. 5521)..............13
Senate Version of H. J. Res. 2 (formerly S. 2809)................14
FY2003 General Provisions, Senate Bill.......................14
Conference Version of H. J. Res. 2, P.L. 108-7..................14
P.L. 108-7, Special Federal Payments and Contributions..........15
P.L. 108-7, General Provisions..............................15
Key Policy Issues.................................................18
Budget Shortfall..............................................18
Emergency Preparedness and Homeland Security....................19
Needle Exchange.............................................20
Medical Marijuana............................................20
Abortion Provision............................................22
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic Partners Program)......23
Public Education.............................................24
Special Education.........................................24
Charter Schools..........................................25
List of Figures
Figure 1. Year-End General Fund Balance: FY1997-FY2001.............4
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2003.............1
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special Federal Payment Funds:
Proposed FY2003 Appropriations.............................7
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds...........................16
Table 4. Emergency Preparedness and Security Funding..................19



Appropriations for FY2003:
District of Columbia
Most Recent Developments
On February 20, 2003, the President signed into law the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2003, P.L. 108-7, formerly H.J.Res. 2 The Act
consolidates under one omnibus appropriations measure 11 appropriations acts,
including the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, that the 107th
Congress failed to complete action on before it adjourned. On February 13, 2003,
the House and Senate approved the conference report (H.Rept. 108-10)
accompanying H.J.Res. 2. The Senate approved its version of H.J.Res. 2 on January
23, 2003. A few weeks earlier, on January 8, 2003, the House approved its initial
version of H.J.Res. 2, extending until January 31, 2003, P.L. 107-229, a continuing
appropriations measure that froze at the FY2002 approved funding level
appropriations for 11 of the 13 appropriations bill for FY2003 that had not yet been
approved by Congress, including the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY2003. The House version of the bill included a provision that would have allowed
the District of Columbia to spend $5.8 billion in locally raised funds while Congress
completed action on the proposed $517 million in federal contributions to the
District’s FY2003 budget. On November 13, 2002, Congress passed H.J.Res. 124,
a continuing resolution extending until January 11, 2003, P.L. 107-229, a continuing
appropriations measure. The measure effectively postponed further congressionalth
consideration of District of Columbia appropriations bill until the start of the 108
Congress.
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2003
CommitteeConf. Report
Markup House House Senat e Senat e Conf . Approved Public
Re por t P assage Re por t P assage Re por t Law
H ouse Senat e H ouse Senat e
H.Rept.S.Rept.H Rept.338-8378-20P.L. 108-7
9/26/02 7/26/02 107-716 (1) 107-225 (1) 108-10 2/13/03 2/13/03 2/20/03
10/2/02 9/26/02 2/13/03
(1) The 107th Congress adjourned without the House or Senate passing their respective versions of the District ofth
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003 (H.R. 5521 or S. 2809). The 108 Congress considered the FY2003
appropriations for the District of Columbia as a part of an omnibus appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2) which the Senate
amended and passed on January 23, 2003.



Background
Since the phaseout of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and1
Management Assistance Authority (the Authority) in September 2001, and the
signing of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, on
December 21, 2001, the District of Columbia government has continued to make
progress in improving the delivery of services and in the city’s long-term financial
health; however, issues remain. Most notably, the city faced a projected budget
shortfall of $323 million for FY2003, if corrective action was not taken. The CFO’s
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), released in January 28, 2002,
certified that the city had achieved a $77.6 million budget surplus for FY2001,
resulting in an accumulated General Fund balance of $526 million. This achievement
marks the city’s fifth consecutive year of balanced or surplus budgets. However, the
significance of this achievement has been eroded by the city’s projected fiscal
imbalance of $323 million.
During the last year, the District of Columbia’s elected and appointed leadership
addressed a number of other governance-related issues, including school reform and
medical services for the uninsured. School reform, according to observers, is a work-
in-progress. The new Board of Education also had to address a $40 million budget
deficit and issues surrounding special education services and the certification of
charter schools. The downsizing of D.C. General Hospital and the creation of an
alternative health care delivery system for the city’s poor residents was, and
continues to be, a contentious political issue. The financial crisis facing the city’s
lead provider of health care for the city’s indigent population, Greater Southeast
Community Hospital, has raised concerns about the viability of the new system that
replaced the city’s public hospital, D.C. General.
District of Columbia Financial Condition
The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995, P.L. 104-8, created the Authority and the Office of Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO). Under the law the CFO is charged with producing audited
statements of the city’s financial condition; preparing the city’s annual budget;
borrowing on behalf of the District; collecting receipts, payments, and transactions
for the District; investing the city’s funds; and administering and enforcing tax laws.
Working in concert, the District’s elected political leadership, the presently dormant
Authority and the CFO implemented a series of financial and management reforms.
The District ended FY1997 with a surplus of $186 million. For FY1998, the
city’s budget surplus was $445 million.2 After a 13-week delay, the city’s CFO


1 The Authority is also known as the control board.
2 The District’s FY1998 surplus was, in part, the result of the National Capital Revitalization
Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33). The Revitalization Act, which improved the city’s fiscal
prospects through the infusion of over $5 billion in federal funds, transferred financial
responsibility for a number of functions to the federal government, including accumulated
pension liability for police, firefighters, teachers, and judges. The act also increased the
(continued...)

reported an FY1999 surplus of $135 million. For FY2000, the general fund surplus
was $241 million, and for FY2001, $77.6 million.3
For FY2003, the city faced a projected budget shortfall of $323 million
according to the CFO.4 The shortfall has required significant reductions in city
services including education and human services. On September 17, 2002, the city’s
CFO submitted revised budget estimates for FY2003 to FY2006, which included a
projected deficit of $323 million for FY2003. In response to the CFO’s findings and
at the urging of Congress, the mayor and the city council submitted a revised budget
on September 27, 2002, aimed at addressing the budget shortfall.
The Office of the CFO has played a critical role in the city’s success in
maintaining budget discipline and its return to fiscal health. On January 28, 2002, the
CFO released the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for
FY2001. The report, which is a critical barometer of the city’s financial health,
showed that it had a budget surplus of $77.6 million at the end of FY2001. The
FY2001 CAFR met the CFO’s key objectives of producing an unqualified audit
opinion and a balanced or surplus budget for the fifth consecutive year.
In 2001, the city approved amendments to the D.C. Code making the OCFO a
permanent part of the city’s governing structure. Without such legislation or the
intervention of Congress, the OCFO would have ceased operating on September 30,
2001, the end of the control period.5 In July 2001, a conference committee
considering supplemental appropriations for the District of Columbia for FY2001
offered, but later withdrew, a proposal regarding the District’s Chief Financial
Officer. On June 19, 2001, the city council held a public hearing on the Independence
of the Chief Financial Officer Establishment Act of 2001, B14-0254. The legislation,
which makes the position of CFO permanent; provides for the appointment and
removal of the CFO by the mayor, with the consent of the city council during a non-
control year; and transfers to the CFO the responsibility for the management of all
executive branch agencies involved in managing the city’s finances. The bill was
approved by the Council by a voice vote on July 10, 2001 as legislative act 14-089.


2 (...continued)
federal share for Medicaid from 50% to 70%, and transferred responsibility for housing
District felons to the federal government.
3 Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

2001Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). (Washington: January 28, 2002),


p. 1. Available online at [http://cfo.dc.gov/cafr/2001/index.shtm].
4 Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Revised
Revenue Estimates for FY2003-FY2006. (Washington: September 17, 2002) p. 1. Available
online at: [http://cfo.dc.gov/news/2002/september/rev_est_analysis091702.shtm]
5 Under P.L. 104-8 a control period is initiated during any year in which the city fails to
achieve a balanced or surplus budget. A control period is terminated after the city has
produced four consecutive years of balanced or surplus budgets. Administrative authority
reverts to the Mayor. During a control period authority over the operations of the city
government rests with the control board.

Figure 1. Year-End General Fund Balance:
FY1997-FY2001
Health Care Safety Net Administration
Reform of the city’s health care delivery system for the poor continues to be a
divisive political issue. During the past 2 years, the city’s political leadership has
become bitterly divided over the downsizing of D.C. General Hospital, the demise
of the Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), and the restructuring of the city’s health
care delivery system for indigent and uninsured residents of the city. The downsizing
and restructuring of the hospital from a 250-bed advance trauma center to a
community access hospital that treats and releases or transfers patients within 23
hours of admittance spawned a last minute challenge to the mayor’s reelection bid.
Reform in the city’s delivery of health care to the poor was sought by Congress
because of the PBC’s mismanagement of D.C. General Hospital. From 1997 to its
dismantling in 2001, the PBC amassed $109 million in unbudgeted loans from the
city, using its power to borrow from the city’s general fund to cover deficit spending
and defer mounting debt. In addition to these questionable financial management
practices, the PBC had been the subject of newspaper stories detailing questionable
hiring practices, including the hiring of friends and relatives of city council members
and former associates of the Executive Director of the PBC.
The new system administered by the newly created Health Care Safety Net
Administration, which was created with the passage of the Health Care Privatization
Act of 2001 (D.C. Law 14-18) and replaced the PBC, began functioning on April 21,
2001. It provides health care services to District residents with incomes that do not
exceed 200% of the poverty level through the Health Care Alliance, a coalition of
health care providers headed by Greater Southeast Community Hospital, and
including Chartered Health Plan, Unity Health Care, Children’s National Medical
Center, the George Washington University Hospital, and the District of Columbia
Department of Health.



Critics of the new plan complained that health care services to the poor would
be severely curtailed, while supporters praised it as responsive and as an effective
means of widening the health care choices of the city’s uninsured while reducing the
cost of care. The effectiveness of the new system has been called into question by
two recent revelations. First, Greater Southeast Community Hospital, the lead
provider of health care services to the city’s indigent population, faces a financial
crisis caused, in some part, by security fraud involving the primary creditor to its
parent company. The hospital’s weakened financial condition has resulted in a
curtailing of services at the hospital and a resulting shift of demand for services to
other hospitals. The hospital’s weakened financial condition also provides new
evidence for critics that the system of privatizing care is flawed.
Second, an October 2, 2002 audit by the city’s Inspector General found
significant problems in the Department of Health’s oversight of the city’s contract
with the Health Care Alliance and the Health Care Alliances administration of the
enrollment process. Specifically, the report noted that the Department of Health had
failed to hire critical personnel in a timely fashion, and the Health Care alliance had
failed to properly screen thousands of ineligible enrollees. The audit found that the
Alliance rolls included individuals with unverified addresses and incomes, third party
insurance, invalid social security numbers, and incomes exceeding enrollment
maximums. Enrollment rules governing eligibility require enrollees to show proof
of District residency, have incomes less than 200% of the poverty level, and have no
other health coverage, including Medicaid. Supporters of the city’s health care
privatization efforts contend that the system is superior to the one it replaced – D.C.
General – the city’s public hospital.
Budget Request
FY2003: The President’s Budget Request
On February 4, 2002, the Bush Administration released its FY2003 budget
recommendations. The Administration’s proposed budget included $378.8 million
in federal payments to the District of Columbia.6 An overwhelming percentage of
the President’s proposed federal payments and assistance to the District involve the
courts and criminal justice system. This includes $161.9 million for the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, an
independent federal agency that has assumed management responsibility for the
District’s pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions. In
addition, the Administration requested $159 million in support of court operations,
and $32 million for Defender Services. These three functions (court operations,
defender services, and offender supervision) represent $352.9 million, or 93.2% of
the President’s proposed $378.8 million in federal payments to the District of
Columbia (see Table 2).


6 U.S. Office of the President. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003
Appendix (Washington, GPO, 2002), p. 1096-1108.

FY2003: District’s Budget Request
On June 4, 2002, District officials transmitted the city’s $5.8 billion budget for
FY2003 to the President for review and approval. On July 11, 2002, the Bush
Administration transmitted the city’s budget to Congress for its review and approval.
The city’s initial operating budget included a $70 million reserve fund. In addition,
the District’s budget would have decreased local funding for public education by $48
million while seeking $23.2 million in special federal payments for charter school
financing, early childhood education, and special education. The District’s initial
budget also would have increased funding for human support services by $680
million and for general government support by $42.6 million.
On September 27, 2002, the District submitted an amended budget for FY2003,
intended to address a $323 million projected deficit. The District’s Fiscal Year 2003
Budget Request Amendment Act, A14-46, would partially address the budget deficit
by reducing total operating expenses by approximately 3.5%. The proposed
reductions included government support activities (6.4%), economic development
activities (8.7%), public safety (3.5%), public education (3.4%) and human services
(3.6%). The amended budget must be approved by Congress (see Table 3). The
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003 is one of several appropriations
bills that the 107th Congress did not pass. It has been included in a series of
continuing appropriations.
FY2003: Section 302(b) Suballocation
Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act requires that the House and
Senate pass a concurrent budget resolution establishing an aggregate spending ceiling
(budget authority and outlays) for each fiscal year. These ceilings are used by House
and Senate appropriators as a blueprint for allocating funds. Section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires appropriations committees in the House
and Senate to subdivide their Section 302(a) allocation of budget authority and
outlays among the 13 appropriations subcommittees. The House Appropriations
Committee approved a Section 302(b) suballocation of $517 million in budget
authority for FY2003 for the District of Columbia.
Congressional Action on the Budget
Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fund certain
activities, but also reviews the District’s entire budget, including the expenditure of
local funds. The District subcommittees of both the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees must approve—and may modify—the District’s budget. House and
Senate versions of the District budget are reconciled in a joint conference committee
and must be agreed to by the House and the Senate. After this final action, the
District’s budget is forwarded to the President, who can sign it into law or veto it.
108th Congress. The 107th Congress was unable to complete action on 11
appropriations bills, including the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY2003, before adjourning. The 108th Congress took up consideration of these bills
in early January 2003, and eventual passed a consolidated appropriation. In the



interim Congress passed a series of continuing budget resolutions aimed at providing
temporary funding for affect programs and activities.
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special
Federal Payment Funds: Proposed FY2003 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
FY2003
Ena c t e d City ’s
ProgramsFY2002Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
Federal Payments: General and Special Fund
Resident Tuition Program17.017.017.017.017.017.0
Emergency Planning and16.0615.015.015.015.015.0
Security
Development of an0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Emergency Ops. Plan
Emergency Plan0.00.00.00.00.00.0
I mp lementatio n
— World Bank/IMF [3.4]0.00.00.00.00.0
reimbursement
Hospital Bioterrorism0.00.00.00.010.010.0
P r eparedness
— Childrens Nat. Med.0.00.00..00..0[5.0][5.0]
Ct. decontamination facility
— Wash. Hosp. Center0.00.00.00.0[5.0][5.0]
decontamination facility
D.C. Courts Operation112.2159.0159.0160.5166..2161.9
Court Operations[105.7][127.4][127.4][160.5][131.0]
Court of Appeals[8.0][8.3][8.3][8.4][8.5][8.5]
— Guard. ad Litem0.00.00.00.0 [1.5]0.0 h
Program
Superior Court[66.1][80.1][80.1][80.1][81.3][81.3]
Court system:[31.6][38.9][38.9][40.4][39.7][40.4]
Capital improvements[6.5][31.6][31.6][31.7][42.2][31.7]
— Integrated justice info.0.00.00.0[1.5][1.5][1.5]
syste m
Family Court24.020.00.00.00.00.0
Superior Court[23.3]0.00.00.00.00.0
Mayor[0.7]0.00.00.00.00.0
— Child and Family[0.5]0.0[1.1]0.00.00.0
Service Agency
Defender Services34.3 32.032.032.034.033.5
— guardian ad litem to0.00.00.00.00.0[1.5]


abused and neglected
child r e n

FY2003
Ena c t e d City ’s
ProgramsFY2002Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
Court Services and Offender147.3f161.9161.9154.7154.7154.7
Supervision Agency for theb
District of Columbia
— Community Supervision[94.1][100.6][100.6][95.7][95.7][95.7]
and Sex Offender Registry
Public Defender Service[20.8][23.9][23.9][23.1][23.1][23.1]
Pretrial Service Agency[32.4][37.3][37.3][36.0][36.0][36.0]
Court Appointed Special0.250.00.00.00.00.0
Ad vo cate
Corrections Trustee for30.20.00.00.00.00.0
Operations
— Case processing [1.0]0.00.00.00.00.0
Lorton sewage treatment[1.5]0.00.00.00.00.0
plant closing
— Lorton Building[0.5]0.00.00.00.00.0
r e no va t i o ns
Public Works Transportation.1.01.01.01.01.0
Management System Initiatives
CFO 8 .3 0.0 0 .0 23.4 15.0 40.3
— Amer. Univ. Women &0.00.00.00.00.0[0.05]
Politics Institute
— Project Reality 0.00.00.00.10.0[0.1]
— Friends of Ft. Dupont0.00.00.00.10.0[0.1]
Congressional Cemetery0.00.00.00.10.0[0.1]
Cap. Childrens Museum0.00.00.00.00.0[0.15]
KidBiz 3000 0.00.00.00.00.0[0.15]
— Nat. Maritime Heritage0.00.00.00.00.0[0.2]
Voyager Expanded0.00.00.0[0.25]0.0[2.0]
Learning Literacy
Best Friends Foundation0.00.00.0[0.25]0.0[0.25]
—National Music Center0.00.00.0[0.25]0.0[0.25]
and Museum Foundation
—National Council of0.00.00.0[0.25]0.0[0.25]
Negro Women
Wash. Opera Edu.0.00.00.00.00.0[0.25]
Wash. Lab School0.00.00.00.00.0[0.25]
Cong. Glaucoma Caucus0.00.00.00.00.0[0.25]
— Perry School0.00.00.00.00.0[0.25]
Community Service Center
— Safe Kids Coalition0.00.00.00.00.0[0.27]]



FY2003
Ena c t e d City ’s
ProgramsFY2002Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
International Youth0.00.00.0[0.3]0.0[0.3]
Service and Dev. Corps.
— Public Access Channel0.00.00.0[0.3}0.0[0.3]
Future Producers Program
—Criminal Justice0.00.00.0[0.3]0.0[0.3]
Coordinating Council
Tech. Innovation and0.00.00.00.00.0[0.3]
Learning Lab
— Close Up Foundation0.00.00.00.00.0[0.4]
Values First training[0.25]0.00.0[0.25]0.0[0.25]
—Excel Institute &National0.00.00.0[0.35]0.0[0.35]
Center for Manufacturing
Sciences Job Training
—Excel Institute Adult[1.0]0.00.0[0.4]0.0[0.4]
Education Program
—Excel Institute for0.00.00.0[1.0]0.0[1.25]
operational expenses
City Museum[0.5]0.00.0[0.5]0.0[0.5]
— Teach for America[0.2]0.00.00.00.0[0.4]
— National Negro College0.00.00.0[0.5]0.0[0.5]
Fund
—Amer. Cities Foundation0.00.00.00.00.0[0.5]
education clearinghouse
Emergency Management,0.00.00.0[0.5]0.0[0.5]
Inc. evacuation planning
G. Washington Univ.0.00.00.0[0.5}0.0[0.5]
Risk management and Univ
of New Orleans Hazards
Assessment
—Capitol City Career0.50.00.0[0.5]g0.0[0.5]
Development and Job
Training
Washington Center for0.00.00.0[0.5]0.0[0.5]
Best Practice College
Awareness Program
—Caribbean Amer.0.00.00.0[0.5]0.0[0.5]
Mission for Edu. Research
Comm. Youth0.00.00.00.00.0[0.5]
Co nnectio n
—Wash. CoG Housing0.00.00.00.00.0[0.5]
Trust Fund
Eisenhower Foundation0.00.00.00.00.0[0.5]
Carver Terrace Initiative
Good Samaritan Found. 0.00.00.00.00.0[0.5]



FY2003
Ena c t e d City ’s
ProgramsFY2002Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
—Reach for Tomorrow0.00.00.00.00.0[0.5]
—Metro Police Secures0.00.00.00.00.0[0.5]
Program
—Institute for Responsible0.00.00.00.00.0[0.5]
Fatherhood
—Second Chance Employ.0.00.00.00.00.0[0.6]
Service for Women
Real World Schools[0.25]0.00.0[1.0]0.0[1.0]
Whitman Walker Clinic0.00.00.0[1.0]0.0[1.0]
Washington CoG0.00.00.0[1.0]0.0[1.0]
Regional Incident Comm
and Coordination
Council of Court0.00.00.0[1.0]0.0[1.0]
Excellence
— Green Door (assist[1.0]0.00.00.00.0[1.0]
residents with mental illness
— Active Cap River[2.25]0.00.00.00.0[1.0]
Cleanup
Covenant House0.00.00.00.00.0[1.22]
—Seed Foundation Charter0.00.00.00.00.0[2.0]
School
—National Institute for0.00.00.0[2.0]0.0[2.0]
Manufacturing Sciences for
infrastructure vulnerability
a sse ssme nt
St. Coletta expansion 2.00.00.0[2.0]g2.0[2.0]
—Nat. Hist. Trust Lincoln0.00.00.00.00.0[2.35]
Cottage Restoration
Canal Park Dev. Assoc.0.00.00.0[2.0]0.0[2.5]
— Childrens National5.50.00.0[5.0]g5.0[5.0]
Medical Center
— Kenilworth Park[0.5]f 0.00.00.08.00.0
Recreation Facilities
One Economy Corp.[0.6]0.00.00.00.00.0
— Langston Project[0.5]0.00.00.00.00.0
Child Passenger Safety[0.35]0.00.00.00.00.0
–– Eastern Market.[0.05]0.00.00.00.00.0
Renovation Study
Woodlawn Cemetery[0.3]0.00.00.00.00.0
Resto r atio n
— Mentoring and hotline[0.3]0.00.00.00.00.0
Character building[0.25]0.00.00.00.00.0



FY2003
Ena c t e d City ’s
ProgramsFY2002Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
Potomac Southwest Waterfront 0.00.00.01.00.02.8
Lorton Asbestos Remediation 0.00.00.01.00.01.0
Capital Improvements for Fire0.50.00.02.00.02.0
and Emer. Med. Services Dept.
D.C. Public Schools2.50.023.214.00.03.0
— Special Education0.00.0[9.0][9.0]0.0[3.0]
Satellite Facilities
— Special Education0.00.0[5.0][5.0]0.00.0
Transportation Services
g g
Voyager Expanded[2.0]0.00.00.0
Learning Literacy
— Failure Free Reading[0.25]0.00.00.00.00.0
Liter acy
— Lightspan, Inc.,[0.25]0.00.00.00.00.0
eduT est.com
Office of Early0.00.0[2.0]0.00.00.0
Childhood Education
D.C.Youth Orchestra0.00.0[0.2]0.00.00.0
Y Care Program0.00.0[2.0]0.00.00.0
— Credit Enhancement0.00.0[5.0]0.0 J0.00.0 J
Revolving Fund
D.C. Public Charter School Fac.0.00.00.016.020.017.0
—pupil allocation0.00.00.00.00.0[4.0]
supplement
charter school0.00.00.00.00.0[5.0]
improvements loan fund
— credit enhancement0.00.00.0k[16.0]0.0[8.0]
revolving fund
Child and Family Services 0.0 0.010.00.00.00.0
Family Literacy Program0.00.0[5.0]5.04.04.0
—Incentives for the5.00.0[5.0]0.00.00.0
adoption of children in
foster care
Adoption[2.0]0.00.00.00.00.0
Scholarship[1.0]0.00.00.00.00.0
— Resource Center[1.0]0.00.00.00.00.0
— Incentives for Special[1.0]0.00.00.00.00.0
Needs Children
Federal Water and Sewer0.0 0.050.050.050.050.0
Authority Payment
Anacostia Waterfront Initiative0.00.00.00.05.05.0



FY2003
Ena c t e d City ’s
ProgramsFY2002Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
Capital Infrastructure Develop.0.00.096.024.315.110.15
Eastern Mkt. Renov.[0.05c]0.0[0.15][0.15][0.1][0.15]
— Unified Comm. Center.0.00.0[22.0][19.1][10.0][10.0]
for Regional Emergencies
and other activities
Downtown Circulator0.00.0[15.0]0.00.00.0
— Waterside Mall Street0.0 0.0[7.0]0.00.00.0
Extensio n
— McKinley Tech. Ctr.0.0d 0.0[7.0]0.00.00.0
— Kenilworth Parksidenote0.0[15.0]0.00.00.0
Athletic Complex
— Crime lab/public health0.00.0[30.0][5.0][5.0e]0.0
lab./ morgue
Technology Development 0.06.70.00.00.0
— Info. and Compliance0.0[3.2]0.00.00.0
Cl e a r i ngho use
— E-Filing and Tax0.0[3.7]0.00.00.0
Payment System
WMATA Metro Rehab.0.021.60.00.00.0
Capitol Education Fund0.50.00.00.00.00.0
Metro. Kappa Youth0.450.00.00.00.00.0
Development Foundation
Chief Medical Examiner0.5850.00.00.00.00.0
Youth Life Foundation0.250.00.00.00.00.0
Food for Friends Program2.00.00.00.00.00.0
City Administrator0.30.00.00.00.00.0
Chief Technology Officer0.00.00.00.00.00.0
Southeastern Univ./ McKinley0.50.00.00.00.00.0
Tech Partnership
Thurgood Marshall Academy1.00.00.00.00.00.0
Charter School
G. Washington University Center0.250.00.00.00.00.0
for Excellence in Municipal
M a na ge me nt
Law Enforcement Mobile1.40.00.00.00.00.0
Wireless Interoperational
CTO[0.4]0.00.00.00.00.0
U.S. Secret Service[0.33]0.00.00.00.00.0
U.S. Capitol Police[0.33]0.00.00.00.00.0
U.S. Park Police[0.33]0.00.00.00.00.0
Faith and Politics Institute0.050.00.00.00.00.0



FY2003
Ena c t e d City ’s
ProgramsFY2002Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
Poplar Point Brownfield3.50.00.00.00.00.0
Reme d iatio n
Environmental[2.15]0.00.00.00.00.0
a sse ssme nt
— Anacostia Park entrance[1.3]0.00.00.00.00.0
Enforcement of law banning0.10.00.00.00.00.0
tobacco possession by minors
Total federal payments407.9378.7592.4517.0517. 0512.0
a In previous years, funds would be provided as part of District of Columbia court operations. Congress
created a separate appropriation to ensure payment of attorneys representing indigent persons, guardianship,
and abused and neglected children in court proceedings.b
Certified as a federal agency on August 14, 2000.c
In FY2002 funds awarded under separate heading to the CFO for a feasibility study of Eastern Market
r e no va t i o n.d
FY2002 appropriations included $0.5 million for Southeastern University and McKinley Technology
Center funding.e
$5 million would be made available in FY2003 to fund the crime lab activities only.
Allows courts to reallocate not more than $1 million among activities funded under this heading.f
$0.5 million was appropriated to CFO in FY2002 for soccer facilities at Kenilworth Park.g
Funds administered under the CFO account.h
Activity funded under Defender Services account.i
Includes $16.4 million in unobligated balances from previous year.j
Funded under separate account for public charter schools.k
Funded as an set aside under public school account
House Version of H.J.Res. 2 (formerly H.R. 5521). On January 8, 2003,
the House approved a joint resolution, H.J.Res. 2, extending P.L. 107-229, through
January 31, 2003. P.L. 107-229, a continuing budget resolution, froze appropriations
for 11 appropriations bills for FY2003 at their FY2002 budget levels. H.J.Res. 2, was
intended to serve as a vehicle for completing final funding decisions on the 11
remaining regular appropriations bills, including the District of Columbia. Section 7
of H.J.Res. 2, as approved by the House on January 8, 2003, would have allowed the
District to spend $5.8 billion in locally raised funds for operating expenses in
accordance with the city’s revised financial plan and budget for FY2003. Although
city officials expressed support for the House provision that would have released that
portion of the District of Columbia budget financed with locally raised funds, the
District’s Delegate to Congress contended that the delay in approving the city’s budget
argued for increased budget autonomy for the city in spending its own locally raised
funds.
During the 107th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee reported out its
version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, H.R. 5521, on
October 2, 2002, several days after the District submitted a revised budget for FY2003.
The House bill included $517 million in special federal payments for the District of
Columbia. Like its Senate counterpart, the bill included $17 million for a college
tuition assistance plan, $15 million for security planning, and $154 million for court
services and offender supervision. The House bill included $14 million in special



federal payments to the D.C. public schools and $24 million for capital infrastructure
projects. The District requested $96 million for such activities.
FY2003 General Provisions, House Bill. The House Appropriations
Committee included a provision that would have removed the prohibition on the use
of District funds for costs associated with implementing the District’s Health Care
Benefits Expansion Act of 1992. The provision was also included in the Senate
version of the bill. Like its Senate counterpart, the House bill retained a number of
provisions that District officials wanted to eliminate or modify, including those related
to medical marijuana, abortion, and needle exchange programs.
Senate Version of H. J. Res. 2 (formerly S. 2809). On January 23, 2003.
the Senate passed its version of H. J. Res. 2, an omnibus appropriations measure that
included the full-text of each of the outstanding regular appropriations bills, as
amended. The Senate bill included $512 million in special federal payments and
earmarks for the District of Columbia. address the differences in House and Senate
general provisions included the District Appropriations Act.
On July 26, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2809, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003. The bill included $517 million
in special federal payments and contributions to the District. The majority of the funds
were slated to be used for courts, defender services, and offender supervision-related
activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee also included $15 million for
emergency planning and response activities, and an additional $15 million for capital
infrastructure projects that support the creation of a unified communications center to
serve all D.C. first responders ($10 million) and a state-of- the-art forensic laboratory
($5 million). The Committee also included $58 million for the Anacostia Waterfront
Initiative. Of this amount $5 million would be used to develop parks and recreational
facilities at Kenilworth Park and $50 million would be used to design and rebuild the
water and sewer system that serves the nation’s capital. These funds were to be
matched by local funds. The House bill did not include funding for the initiative.
FY2003 General Provisions, Senate Bill. During its consideration of the
bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee included a provision that would remove the
prohibition on the use of District funds for costs associated with implementing the
District’s Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992. The act allows a District
employee to include a cohabitating, but unrelated, person on the employee’s health
insurance plan. The act also allows unrelated heterosexual and homosexual couples
to register as domestic partners. The Committee also would have reduced the number
of general provisions included in the bill to 36 from the 41 included in the FY2002
Appropriations Act. It retained a number of provisions that District officials wanted
eliminated or modified, including those related to medical marijuana, abortion, and
needle exchange programs.
Conference Version of H. J. Res. 2, P.L. 108-7. The 107th Congress
adjourned without the House or Senate passing their respective versions of the District
of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003 (H.R. 5521 or S. 2809). The 108th
Congress considered the FY2003 appropriations for the District of Columbia as a part
of an omnibus appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2). The House originally introduced H.
J.Res. 2, on January 8, 2003, as a continuing budget resolution providing temporary



funding for programs funded under 11 appropriations bills, including the District of
Columbia Appropriations for FY2003, considered, but not passed, during the 107th
Congress. The Senate amended and passed its version of H. J. Res. 2, on January 23,

2003.


P.L. 108-7, Special Federal Payments and Contributions. The conference
version of H.J.Res. 2, was approved by the House and Senate on February 13, 2002.
The Act, which was signed by the President on February 20, 2003, appropriates $512
million in special federal payments and contributions to the District of Columbia and
associated public and private entities. The Act includes:
!$162 million for the operation of the District of Columbia Court
system;
!$155 million for court services and offender supervision activities;
!$50 million federal payment to the Washington Water and Sewer
Authority;
!$33 million for defender services;
!$30 million for security and emergency preparedness and response
activities, including $15 million for security planning activities;
!$20 million for public education, including $3 million in support of
special education, and $17 million for the District’s public charter
schools; and
!$17 million for college tuition assistance plan.
The Act also includes $40 million allocated to the CFO and earmarked for 56
public and private entities for specific projects and activities.
P.L. 108-7, General Provisions. The Act, as passed by Congress, includes
several provisions which city leaders sought to have removed or modified
characterizing the provisions as intrusive and anti-home rule. The Act prohibits the
use of the use of federal and District funds for:
! lobbying for District statehood or voting representation in Congress;
! abortion services, except in the case of rape or incest;
!a needle or syringe exchange program intended to reduce the spread of
AIDS/HIV; or
!legalize marijuana or the implementation of a medical marijuana
initiative.
The Act allows the District to continue to use local funds to implement the 1992
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, which extends medical, employment, and



government benefits to unmarried couples, including homosexuals. The Act includes
several provisions aimed at addressing public education issues in the District of
Columbia. In addition to appropriating a combined $20 million in special federal
contributions to the District of Columbia Public School System ($3) and public charter
schools ($17 million), the Act includes language authorizing the establishment of the
Office of Public Charter School Financing and Support and the a new Charter School
Fund. The Act also establishes a $4,000 ceiling payable to attorneys involved legal
actions brought against the District of Columbia Public Schools under the Individuals
with Disabilities Educations Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.). For additional background
on these and other key policy issues please see Key Policy Issues section of this report.
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds
(in millions of dollars)
FY2003
EnactedDistrict
ProgramsFY2002House Senate Conf.Initial Amended
Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds
GENERAL FUND
Governmental Direction322.714280.138262.310303.586295.136307.173
and Support
Economic Development231.895267.532244.360258.539258.539244.358
and Regulation
Public Safety and Justice637.993639.895617.584639.892639.892622.531
Public Education System1,152.0141,200.2001,159.9881,257.2011,220.2011,,206.169
Human Support Services1,816.4702,527.7662,439.0182,474.2972,500.2972,451.818
Public Works314.093324.828319.782324.828324.828320.357
Receivership Programs416.4600.00.00.00.00.0
Workforce Investments42.89654.18648.18654.18654.18648.186
Reserve Fund120.000 70.00070.00070.070.00070.000
Emer. and Contingency30.00.00.00.00.00.0
Reserve Fund
Emergency Planning and16.05815.00015.00015.00015.00015.000
Security Costs
Repayment of Loans and247.902267.451260.951267.451267.451260.951
Interest
Repayment Gen. Fund39.30039.30039.30039.30039.30039.300
Recovery Debt
Pay Interest on Short0.5001.0001.0001.0001.0001.000
Term Borrowing
Wilson Building8.8594.1944.1944.1944.1944.194
Tobacco Settlement Trust33.25450.86749.86710.00010.00049.867


Fund Transfer

FY2003
EnactedDistrict
ProgramsFY2002House Senate Conf.Initial Amended
One Judiciary Square0.07.9507.9507.9507.9507.950
Certificate of Participation
Non-departmental Agency5.7995.7995.7995.7995.7995.799
Pay-As-You-Go Capital0.016.7500.016.75016.750
Settlements and0.022.82222.82222.8220.022.822
Judgements
Capital Infrastructure0.00.00.00.015.1000.0
Investment
General Fund Total5,436.2075,795.6785,568.1115,772.7955,768.4455,632.608
Operating Expenses
Enterprise Funds
Water and Sewer244.978253.743253.743253.743253.743253.743
Authority
Washington Aqueduct46.51057.84757.84757.84757.84757.847
Stormwater Permit2.1513.1003.1003.1003.1003.100
Compliance
Lottery and Charitable229.688232.881232.881232.881232.881232.881
Games
Sports and Enter.9.62715.51015.51015.51023.51015.510
Commission
DC Retirement Board13.38813.38813.38813.38813.38813.388
Convention Center57.27878.70078.70078.70078.70078.700
Enterprise Fund
Housing Finance Agency 4.7110.00.00.00.00.0
National Capital
Revitalization 2.673 4.908 4.908 6.745 6.745 6.745
Corporation
Total Enterprise Funds611.953660.077660.077661.914661.914661.194
Total Operating6,048.1606,455.7556,228.1886,434.7096,438.3596,294.522
Expenses
Capital Outlay
General Fund1,074.604504.047504.047666.368639.070671.020
Water and Sewer Fund152.114 292.458392.458342.458342.458
Total Capital Outlays1,226.718796.505896.5051,008.826981.528671.020
Total District of7,274.8787,252.2607,124.6937,443.5357,419.8876,965.542


Columbia Funds

Key Policy Issues
Budget Shortfall
According to the city’s CFO, the District faced a projected FY2003 budget
deficit of $323 million. This revenue shortfall can, in part, be attributable to the
residual effects of the attacks of September 11, 2001, which reduced tourism,
convention, and business travel income. Other factors such as a slowing economy,
lower returns on investments, and overspending in such areas as public education
also have contributed to the looming deficit. With a deadline of October 1, 2002, the
start of the 2003 fiscal year, city leaders, in order to avoid congressional intervention
or the possible resurrection of the control board, developed an acceptable plan that
may close the revenue and expenditure gap.
City officials considered several options aimed at addressing the projected $323
million deficit. The mayor and city council considered action that would:
!reduce expenditures;
!increase taxes and fees;
!access the reserve fund; or
!any combination of the three.
If city leaders had been unable to fashion a plan, the city faced the possibility
that Congress would have intervened and made the cuts. According to press reports
at the time, , the most likely plan included significant cuts in the 10 agencies with
the largest budgets including education, health, and human services.7 Cuts in these
areas would affect children and the poor. It could have also involved a significant
reduction in the city’s work force and the deferring of employee wage increases,
planned capital expenditures or program increases. The city leadership asked unions
representing city employees to temporarily put off raises built into their contracts for
FY2003, which began October 1, 2002. The raises average about 4% with police
raises at 5%. According to estimates by the Williams administration, if the unions
agreed to a 4-month delay, for instance, it could save the city $8 million to $10
million.8
If the city had chosen tax and fee increases, the mostly likely targets were
increases on alcohol, hotel, and tobacco. According to Jack Evans, chair of the city
council’s Finance and Revenue Committee, increases in general sales or property
taxes could prove politically unpopular, since city residents are among the most
heavily taxed in the nation.9 The city also considered rolling back planned income
tax relief.


7 David Nakamura, “D.C. Targets Schools To Eliminate Deficit: Tax Increases, Program
Cuts Weighed,” Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2002, p. B1.
8 David Fahrenthold, “D.C. Suggests Delaying Pay Raises,”Washington Post, September

20, 2002, p. B5.


9 Craig Timberg. “D.C. Must Fix $323 Million Deficit by Oct. 1.,” Washington Post.
September 18, 2002, p. B3.

Another option considered was the use of the city reserve funds. It should be
noted that the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2002, P.L. 107-96 and the
D.C. Code (§1-204.50a) require the District, when using reserve funds to close a
budget gap in a given fiscal year, to replenish the fund the following fiscal year.
Currently, the city’s CFO projects annual budget deficits for the next 4 years that may
reach as much as $351 million in FY2006.10
Emergency Preparedness and Homeland Security
In addition to the $15 million earmarked for emergency planning and security,
the city’s budget includes additional emergency planning and homeland security
related funding. Specially, the city requested $22 million for a unified
communications system for regional emergencies. The House bill includes $39.6
million, including $19 million for a unified regional emergency communications
center.
Table 4. Emergency Preparedness and Security Funding
FY2003
Enacted City’s
Programs FY2002 Ad mi n . Budget House S en ate Conf.
Emergency Planning and16.0615.015.015.015.015.0
Security
Unified Communications0.00.022.019.110.010.0
Center for Regional Emer.and
Other Activities
Emergency Management, Inc.0.00.00.00.50.00.5
Evacuation Planning
George Washington Univ. Risk0.00.00.00.50.00.5
Management and Univ. of New
Orleans Hazards Assessment
National Institute for Manuf.0.00.00.02.00.02.0
Sciences Infrastructure
Vulnerability Assessment
Capital Improvements for Fire0.50.00.02.00.02.0
and Emer. Medical Services
Metro. Wash. CoG Regional0.00.00.01.00.01.0
Incident Communication and
Coordination
Total 16.56 15.0 37.0 40.1 25.0 31.0


10 Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Revised
Revenue Estimates for FY2003-FY2006. (Washington: September 17, 2002), p. 1.
Available online at: [http://cfo.dc.gov/news/2002/September/rev_est_analysis091702.shtm],
visited September 19, 2002.

Needle Exchange
Whether to continue a needle exchange program funded with federal or District
funds is one of several key policy issues that Congress considered when reviewing
the District’s appropriations for FY2003. The controversy surrounding funding a
needle exchange program touches on issues of home rule, public health policy, and
government sanctioning and facilitating the use of illegal drugs. Proponents of a
needle exchange program contend that such programs reduce the spread of HIV
among illegal drug users by reducing the incidence of shared needles. Opponents of
these efforts contend that such programs amount to government sanctioning of illegal
drugs by supplying drug-addicted persons with the tools to use them. In addition,
they contend that public health concerns raised about the spread of AIDS and HIV
through shared contaminated needles should be addressed through drug treatment and
rehabilitation programs. Another view in the debate focused on the issue of home
rule and the city’s ability to use local funds to institute such programs free from
congressional actions.
The prohibition on the use of federal and District funds for a needle exchange
program was first approved by Congress as Section 170 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277. The 1999 Act did allow private
funding of needle exchange programs. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act
for FY2001, P.L. 106-522, continued the prohibition on the use of federal and
District funds for a needle exchange program, and restricted where privately funded
needle exchange activities could take place. Section 150 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2001 made it unlawful to distribute any needle or syringe
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug in any area in the city that is within
1,000 feet of a public elementary or secondary school, including any public charter
school. The provision was deleted during congressional consideration and passage
of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of FY2002, P.L. 107-96. The act also
included a provision that allows the use of private funds for a needle exchange
program, but prohibits the use of both District and federal funds for such activities.
Presently, only one entity, Prevention Works, a private nonprofit AIDS awareness
and education program, operates a privately funded needle exchange program. The
FY2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act requires such entities to track and
account for the use of public and private funds.
District officials were seeking to lift the prohibition on the use of District funds
for needle exchange programs. However, P.L. 108-7, prohibits the use of both
District and federal funds for needle exchange programs. The Act allows the use of
private funds for needle exchange programs and requires private and public entities
account for these funds separately. The Senate version of the District’s
Appropriations Act, S. 2809, would have allowed the use of local government funds
for needle exchange programs, but would have maintained the prohibition on the use
of federal funds. Like the final conference provision, the House bill, H.R. 5521,
prohibited the use of both District and federal funds for a needle exchange program.
Medical Marijuana
The medical marijuana initiative provision in the District of Columbia
appropriations legislation is another issue that engenders controversy. The District



of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277, included a provision that
prohibited the city from counting ballots of a voter-approved initiative that would
have allowed the medical use of marijuana to assist persons suffering debilitating
health conditions and diseases including cancer and HIV infection.
Congress’s power to prohibit the counting of a medical marijuana ballot
initiative was challenged in a suit filed by the D.C. Chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). On September 17, 1999, District Court Judge Richard
Roberts ruled that Congress, despite its unique legislative responsibility for the
District under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, did not possess the power to
stifle or prevent political speech, which included the ballot initiative.11 This ruling
allowed the city to tally the votes on the November 1998 ballot initiative. To prevent
the implementation of the initiative, Congress had 30 days to pass a resolution of
disapproval from the date the medical marijuana ballot initiative (Initiative 59) was
certified by the Board of Elections and Ethics. Language prohibiting the
implementation of the initiative was included in P.L. 106-113, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000. Opponents of the provision contend that
it and similar actions undercut the concept of home rule.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, includes
a provision that continues to prohibit the District government from implementing the
initiative. Congress’ power to block the implementation of the initiative was again
challenged in the courts. On December 18, 2001, two groups, the Marijuana Policy
Project and Medical Marijuana Initiative Committee, filed suit in U.S. District Court,
seeking injunctive relief in an effort to put a medical marijuana initiative on the
November 2002 ballot. The District’s Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that a
congressional rider that has been included in the general provisions of each District
appropriation act since 1998 prohibits it from using public funds to do preliminary
work that would put the initiative on the ballot.
On March 28, 2002, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the congressional ban
on the use of public funds to put such a ballot initiative before the voters was
unconstitutional.12 The judge stated that the effect of the amendment was to restrict
the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to engage in political speech. The decision was
appealed by the Justice Department and on September 19, 2002, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the ruling of the lower court
without comment. The three-judge Appeals Court panel stated its decision would be
fully explained in an opinion to be issued at a later date. The Appeals Court noted
that it issued its ruling on September 19, 2002, because that was the deadline for
printing ballots of the November general election.


11 Turner v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics. No. 98-2634 Civ. (D.D.C.
Sept. 17, 1999)(memorandum opinion ).
12 Marijuana Policy Project v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics. No. 01-
2595 Civ. (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2002)(memorandum opinion, order and judgement). The District
Court’s ruling was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals District of
Columbia Circuit. The Court ruled without comment.

Consistent with provisions included in H.R. 5521 and S. 2809, P.L. 108-7
includes a provision that continues the prohibition against the implementation of the
medical marijuana ballot initiative.
Abortion Provision
The public funding of abortion services for District of Columbia residents is a
perennial issue debated by Congress during its annual deliberations on District of
Columbia appropriations. District officials cite the prohibition on the use of District
funds as another example of congressional intrusion into local matters. The District
of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, included a provision
prohibiting the use of federal or District funds for abortion services, except in cases
where the life of the mother is endangered or the pregnancy is the result of rape or
incest. This prohibition has been in place since 1995, when Congress approved the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134.
Since 1979, with the passage of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of
1980, P.L. 96-93, Congress has placed some limitation or prohibition on the use of
public funds for abortion services for District residents. From 1979 to 1988,
Congress restricted the use of federal funds for abortion services to cases where the
mother’s life would be endangered or the pregnancy resulted from rape and incest.
The District was free to use District funds for abortion services.
When Congress passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1989,
P.L. 100-462, it restricted the use of District and federal funds for abortion services
to cases where the mother’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy was taken to
term. The inclusion of District funds, and the elimination of rape or incest as
qualifying conditions for public funding of abortion services, was endorsed by
President Reagan, who threatened to veto the District’s appropriations act if the
abortion provision was not modified.13 In 1989, President Bush twice vetoed the
District’s FY1990 appropriations act over the abortion issue. He signed P.L. 101-168
after insisting that Congress include language prohibiting the use of District revenues
to pay for abortion services except in cases where the mother’s life was endangered.14
The District successfully fought for the removal of the provision limiting
District funding of abortion services when Congress considered and passed the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994, P.L. 103-127. The FY1994 Act
also reinstated rape and incest as qualifying circumstances allowing for the public
funding of abortion services. The District’s success was short lived. The District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134, and subsequent District of
Columbia appropriations acts, limited the use of District and federal funds for
abortion services to cases where the mother’s life is endangered or cases where the
pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.


13 Congressional Quarterly, Inc., District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill, Congressional
Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLIV, 1988, p. 713.
14 Congressional Quarterly, Inc., D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,
Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLV, 1989, p. 757.

P.L. 108-7, continues the restrict on the use of District and federal funds for
abortion services except in cases of rape or incest, or the life of the mother is
endangered. This is consistent with provisions included in the House and Senate
versions of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003.
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act
(Domestic Partners Program)
P.L. 107-96 includes a provision lifting the congressional prohibition on the use15
of District funds to implement its Health Care Benefits Expansion Act. The
provision permits unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to register as
domestic partners. Under the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, which was
approved by the city’s elected leadership in 1992, an unmarried person who registers
as a domestic partner of a District employee hired after 1987 may be added to the
District employee’s health care policy for an additional charge. The Act had not been
implemented until 2002 because of a congressional prohibition first included in the
general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994.
The city’s Health Care Benefits Expansion Act allows two unmarried and
unrelated individuals to register as domestic partners with the District for the purpose
of securing certain health and family related benefits, including hospital visitation
rights. Under the law, District government employees enrolled in the District of
Columbia Employees Health Benefits Program are allowed to purchase family health
insurance coverage that would cover the employee’s family members, including
domestic partners. In addition, a District employee registered as a domestic partner
may assume the additional cost of the family health insurance coverage for family
members, which would include the employee’s domestic partner.
Opponents of the Act believe that it is an assault on the institution of marriage,
and that the Act grants unmarried gay and heterosexual couples the same standing as
married couples. Congressional proponents of lifting the ban on the use of District
funds argue that the implementation of the Act is a question of home rule and local


15 On September 20, 2001, the House Appropriations Committee approved, by a vote of 28
to 21, an amendment introduced by Representatives Kolbe and Moran, that removed the
congressional prohibition on the use of District funds for the implementation of the city’s
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act. The Act, which was approved by the city’s elected
leadership in 1992, had not been implemented because of a congressional prohibition first
included in the general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994.
On September 25, 2001, during House consideration of H.R. 2944, the House version of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, Representative Dave Weldon offered
an amendment (H.Amdt. 310) that would have reaffirmed the ban on the use of District
funds to implement the health care expansion program. The Weldon amendment failed by
a vote of 194 to 226. The Senate bill also included a provision that would have allowed the
District to use city, but not federal, funds to implement the District of Columbia Employees
Health Benefits Program. It had not been implemented because of a congressional
prohibition first included in the general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations
Act for FY1994. The District began implementation of the health care benefits expansion
program on July 8, 2002.

autonomy. Supporters of the amendment noted that at least nine states, 136 local
governments, and more than 4,000 companies offer benefits to domestic partners.16
P.L. 108-07, consistent with the provision included in the District’s FY2002
Appropriations Act, includes a general provision that allows the use of District funds
to administer the program during FY2003.
Public Education
In passing the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, Congress
included additional funds and authority to address issues related to special education
and public charter schools.
Special Education. The District’s special education program has long been
characterized as ineffective and inefficient. The system has been plagued by
problems in transporting students to special education facilities and in the timely
evaluation of students who may have special needs. Delays in the period between the
time a student is referred and assessed increases the number of students placed in
private educational institutions, which adds to the cost of special education. Concern
about the cost of these delays prompted Congress to include a provision in the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999 that extends the time period
between referral and assessment of a student with special education needs, as defined
by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)17 or the Rehabilitation1819
Education Act, from 50 days to 120 days. P.L. 108-7 does not include the 120-
day special education evaluation and placement time period included in previous
appropriations acts.
In addition, the 1999 Appropriations Act for the District of Columbia limited the
amount of compensation payable to attorneys representing disabled students who
prevailed in an action brought against the District of Columbia Public Schools
(DCPS ) under the IDEA. Subsequent Appropriations Acts for FY2000 and FY2001,
also limited the amount of funds payable to attorneys successfully representing
students seeking special education services. The FY1999 Act limited attorneys’ fees
to an hourly rate of $50 and a case ceiling of $1,300; the FY2000 limit was $60 per
hour and a case ceiling of $1,560; and the FY2001 rate was $125 per hour with a case
ceiling of $2,500.
The District’s FY2002 Appropriations Act lifted the ceiling, in part, in response
to the argument that the ceiling placed a hardship on households with limited
financial resources. District officials countered that the payment of attorney’s fees
diverted significant funds from the provision of special education services, but were


16 Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Frequently Ask Questions on Domestic Partners
Benefits: Employers that Offer Domestic Partners Benefits,
[http://www.hrc.org/worknet/dp/index.asp], visited September 25, 2002.
17 20 U.S.C. 1401(a)(1)
18 (29 USC 706(8))
19 P.L. 105-277,. Section 141

unable to quantify the amount. As a consequence the FY2002 Appropriations
directed the superintendent of the DCPS to provide an itemized list of attorney’s fees
awarded plaintiffs who had prevailed in cases brought under the IDEA.20 The Act
also directed the General Accounting Office to report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on attorneys’ fees awarded to prevailing plaintiffs
seeking remedy under the IDEA in excess of the payment ceiling established in the
Appropriations Acts for FY1999, FY2000, and FY2001.21 Copies of the GAO
reports cited above may be obtained at the GAO website.22
Section 144 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, limits
to $4,000, the amount of appropriated funds that may be used to pay attorneys fees
for actions brought against the DCPS under the IDEA. Section 145 of the Act
requires attorneys in special education cases brought under the IDEA to disclose all
financial, corporate, legal, or other interest or relationships with any special education
diagnostic services or schools to which the attorney may have referred any client.
Charter Schools. Faced with declining performance of the city’s public
schools, Congress passed legislation allowing for the creation of public charter
schools. The District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 granted to the
District of Columbia Board of Education, and a newly created District of Columbia
Public Charter School Board authority to establish charter schools. These two
entities act independently in granting charter schools, but combined the two boards
can charter no more than 20 schools per year. Charter schools can be established in
one of three ways: private or existing public schools may convert to charter schools,
or a charter school may be created as a new startup. These schools are independent
of the public school system, but like their public school counterparts, they receive
funds based on a uniform per pupil funding formula. The purpose of these
independent public charter schools is to offer viable alternatives to students and
parents. Currently, there are 39 public charter schools operating in the District
serving 14% of the school population.
P.L. 108-7, includes several provisions in support of the public charter school
movement in the District of Columbia. The Act appropriates $17 million for charter
school activities including $8 million for a credit enhancement revolving fund, and
$5 million for a facilities improvement fund. In addition the Act establishes the
Office of Public Charter School Financing and Support and amends the District of
Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 to establish the Charter School Fund. The Act
also includes a provision directing the General Accounting Office to provide a
detailed analysis of the District’s and national efforts to establish adequate charter


20 P.L. 107-96, Section 140(b).
21 P.L. 107-96, Section 141.
22 U.S. General Accounting Office, DCPS: Limitation of Attorneys’ Fees for Fiscal Years
1999 through 2001, GAO report 03-224R (Washington, Nov. 6, 2002); and
U.S. General Accounting Office DCPS: Attorneys Fees for Access to Special Education
Opportunities, GAO report 02-559R, (Washington, May 22, 2002.

schools facilities. These provisions demonstrate Congress’s continued support for
the District’s charter school movement. They are intended to address a major issue
confronting charter schools in the city – finding, financing, and renovating adequate
facilities.