District of Columbia: Appropriations for 2007

District of Columbia: Appropriations for 2007
Updated January 18, 2007
Eugene Boyd
Analyst
Government and Finance Division
David P. Smole
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division



The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing
the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the
Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each year.
It is designed to supplement the information provided by the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District
of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies. It
summarizes the status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff
relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.aspx?P RDS_CLI _ITEM _ID=73].



District of Columbia: Appropriations for 2007
Summary
On February 6, 2006, the Bush Administration released its FY2007 budget
request, which included $597.2 million in proposed special federal payments to the
District of Columbia. Four payments (court operations, defender services, offender
supervision, and criminal justice coordination) represented $455.767 million, or
76.3%, of the proposed $597.2 million in total federal payments to the District
requested by the Administration.
On May 9, 2006, the District’s city council approved the city’s $9.2 billion
operating budget for FY2007. The District’s budget is submitted for the approval of
Congress, as required by the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government
Reorganization Act, P.L. 93-198 (87 Stat. 801). It also included $2.6 billion in capital
outlays, including an additional $63 million to finance a new major league baseball
stadium, and $634 million in special federal payments. The 109th Congress was
unable to complete its passage of the District Appropriations Act, but did included
a provision in a continuing budget resolution allowing the District to implement its
FY2007 Budget and Financial Plan (120 Stat. 1315).
On June 9, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 5576 —
the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development,
the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act for FY2007 (TTHUD). The House approved the bill on June 14, 2006. The
Senate approved the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2007, S. 3660,
on July 13, 2006. The House bill would appropriate $575.2 million in special federal
payments to the District, including $75.9 million in special federal payments in
support of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education initiatives. The
Senate bill would appropriate $597 million in special federal payments. The House
bill also recommends $478.8 million for criminal justice activities, including court
operations, defender services, offender supervision, and the criminal justice
coordinating council. This is $11 million more than the $467.8 million
recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate bill would
appropriate $15 million in special federal payments for public library improvements
and $4 million for expansion of the Navy Yard Metro Station. The House bill does
not include funding for library improvements. It does include $20 million for
expansion of the Navy Yard Metro Station, but not as a special federal payment to
the District as requested by the Administration. Instead it would be funded as part
of the federal Transportation Department’s capital investment fund account.
Consistent with provisions included in previous appropriations acts, the House
and Senate bills would prohibit the use of federal and District funds to finance or
administer a needle exchange program; fund abortion services, except in an instance
of rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is threatened; and implement the
city’s medical marijuana initiative, which would decriminalize the use of marijuana
for medical purposes. The bills also include provisions that would prohibit the use
of federal and District funds to support activities aimed at achieving statehood for the
District or voting representation in Congress. This report will be updated as events
warrant.



Contents
Budget Request...................................................2
FY2007: The President’s Budget Request...........................2
FY2007: District’s Budget Request................................3
FY2007: Section 302(b) Suballocation.............................3
Congressional Action on the Budget...............................4
House Bill...............................................4
House Bill General Provisions................................5
Senate Bill...............................................5
Senate Bill General Provisions...............................5
Continuing Resolution......................................6
Key Policy Issues.................................................12
Needle Exchange.............................................12
Medical Marijuana............................................14
Abortion Provision............................................15
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic Partners Program)......16
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support......................17
Federal Payment for K-12 School Improvement.....................18
DC School Choice Incentive Act.............................19
Establishment of Academic Year As Fiscal Year for
District of Columbia Schools................................20
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2007.............1
Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments Funds:
FY2007 Appropriations.........................................6
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds...............11
Table 4. Selected Multiples of 2006 Poverty Guidelines..................20



District of Columbia: Appropriations for 2007
The authority for congressional review and approval of the District’s budget is
derived from the Constitution and the District of Columbia Self-Government and1
Government Reorganization Act of 1973 (Home Rule Act). The Constitution gives
Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever”
pertaining to the District of Columbia. In 1973, Congress granted the city limited
home rule powers and empowered citizens of the District to elect a mayor and city
council, but Congress retained the power to review and approve all District laws
including the District’s annual budget. As required by the Home Rule Act, the city
council must approve a budget within 50 days after receiving a budget proposal from
the mayor. The approved budget must then be transmitted to the President, who2
forwards it to Congress for its review, modification, and approval. Both the
President’s annual budget submission and Congress may propose financial assistance
to the District in the form of special federal payments in support of specific activities
or priorities.
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2007
Committee MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.Conf. ReportApprovedPublic
Repo rt Passage Repo rt Passage Repo rt La w
H o use Sena t e H o use Sena t e
H.R. 5576S. 3660H.Rept.6/14/06S.Rept.
6/09/06 7/13/06 109-495 (406-22) 109-281
On February 6, 2006, the President sent Congress his budget request for
FY2007, which included a request for $597.2 million in special federal payments to
the District of Columbia. On June 9, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee
reported H.R. 5576, the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2007 (TTHUD). The measure, which the House
approved June 14, 2006, includes $575.2 million in special federal payments for the
District of Columbia. On July 13, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee
reported S. 3660, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2007. The bill
would appropriate $597 million in special federal payments for the District.


1 See Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 446 of P.L. 93-198,
(87 Stat. 801).
2 87 Stat. 801.

During the past several years Congress has provided special federal payments
in support of tuition assistance for post-secondary education and for elementary and
secondary education (K-12) school improvement. In support of post-secondary
education, H.R. 5576 would provide $35.1 million for the District of Columbia
Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) program, a $2.2 million increase above the
amount appropriated in FY2006. S. 3660 would provide $33.2 million for the
program, approximately $0.3 million above the FY2006 appropriation and $1.9
million less than recommended by the House. In support of K-12 school
improvement, $40.8 million would be provided under the House bill and $40.0
million under the Senate bill to be allocated among public schools, public charter
schools, and scholarship vouchers for students attending private elementary and
secondary schools.
The House-approved bill does not include the $30 million for central and branch
library construction and renovation activities that was initially included the measure
reported by the House Appropriations Committee. Nor does it include a special
federal payment of $20 million for enhancements to and expansion of the Navy Yard
Metro Station. The funds were requested by the Administration and the District in
anticipation of an increased federal presence due to the renovation of the Federal
Center Southeast area and the construction of a major league baseball stadium for the
Washington Nationals. Instead, the House bill would provide the requested $20
million as an earmark under the Department of Transportation’s capital investment
account. The Senate bill includes $15 million in special federal payments to support
improvements in the city’s library system, and it would provide a $4 million special
federal payment for improvements to the Navy Yard Metro Station. The Senate bill
also includes $4 million for marriage development account, $2 million for foster care
reforms, and $4.5 million for bioterrorism preparedness and a forensic lab. These
provisions were not included in the House measure.
Consistent with appropriations acts for previous fiscal years, the House and
Senate measures would restrict or prohibit the use of District and federal funds to
support a needle exchange program, abortion services, and a voter-approved medical
marijuana initiative.
Budget Request
FY2007: The President’s Budget Request
On February 6, 2006, the Bush Administration released its FY2007 budget
request. The Administration’s proposed budget included $597.2 million in federal
payments to the District of Columbia. More than three-quarters of the President’s
proposed federal payment is for the District’s courts and criminal justice system.3
This included $196.6 million in support of court operations, $43.5 million for
Defender Services, and $181.7 million for the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, an independent federal agency that


3 U.S. Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2007
Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2006), pp. 1125-1126 and 1129-1138.

has assumed management responsibility for the District’s pretrial services, adult
probation, and parole supervision functions. The Administration also requested $1.3
million for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council and $32.7 million for the
public defender’s office. These four functions (court operations, defender-related
services, offender supervision, and criminal justice coordination) represent $455.8
million, or 76%, of the President’s proposed $597.2 million in federal payments to
the District of Columbia. The President’s budget request also included $75.9 million
in support of elementary and secondary education, and college tuition assistance (see
Table 2). This represents 12.7% of the Administration’s proposed federal payments
to the District. Additionally, the Administration requested $8.5 million for security
planning, which is $5.2 million less than appropriated in FY2006 (see Table 2).
FY2007: District’s Budget Request
On May 9, 2006, the District’s city council unanimously approved the city’s
$9.2 billion operating budget for FY2007 and forwarded it to the President for
review, approval, and transmittal to Congress.4 The proposed budget included a
request for $634 million in special federal payments. It would decrease local funding
for public education by $33.5 million (see Table 3), while seeking $40.8 million in
special federal payments for public schools ($13.0 million), charter schools ($13.0
million), and school vouchers ($14.8 million) (see Table 2). The proposed budget
would increase local funding for economic development and regulation by $148
million and human support services by $98.6 million (see Table 3). The District
budget would also provide $115 million for the city’s housing production trust fund
in support of affordable housing and homeownership.
The District also requested $35.1 million in a special federal payment for the
District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grants (DCTAG) program, a proposed
increase of $2.2 million above the federal government’s FY2006 commitment.5 In
addition, the District requested $5 million in special federal payments for
construction of a hiking and biking trail along the Anacostia River and $40 million
in special federal payments to support security and emergency preparedness
activities, including $25 million for bioterrorism preparedness and $15 million for
emergency planning and security.
FY2007: Section 302(b) Suballocation
Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 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 requires appropriations committees in the House


4 Section 446 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization
Act, P.L. 93-198 (87 Stat. 801), as amended in 1989, requires a budget approved by the
mayor and city council of the District of Columbia to be to submitted to the President for
transmittal to Congress.
5 See CRS Report RS20646, District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program, by Bonnie
Mangan.

and Senate to subdivide their Section 302(a) allocation of budget authority and
outlays among the 10 appropriations subcommittees in the House and the 12
appropriations subcommittees in the Senate. On June 6, 2006, the House
Appropriations Committee approved a Section 302(b) suballocation of $87.8 billion
in budget authority for FY2007 to be allocated among the various programs and
activities within the jurisdiction of the TTHUD Subcommittee.6 On June 22, 2006,
the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a $597 million suballocation for the
District of Columbia as part of its $87.8 billion subcommittee spending allocation for
FY2007.
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 House and Senate Appropriations Committees consider — and may
modify — the District’s budget. House and Senate versions of the District budget are
reconciled in a joint conference committee and considered by the House and the
Senate. After final passage, the District’s budget is forwarded to the President, who
can sign it into law or veto it.
House Bill. On May 26, 2006, a House appropriations subcommittee
conducted a markup of the TTHUD for FY2007 and forwarded the unnumbered bill,
which was subsequently designated as H.R. 5576, to the full Appropriations
Committee for its consideration. On June 6, 2006, the House Appropriations
Committee ordered reported H.R. 5576, which included $575.2 million in special
federal payments for the District of Columbia (H.Rept. 109-495). As reported by the
committee and approved by the House on June 14, 2006, the bill recommends $35.1
million for the city’s college tuition assistance program, a $2.2 million increase
above the program’s FY2006 funding level. The bill also includes $40.8 million in
special federal payments in support of continued efforts to strengthen public schools
and expand elementary and secondary education choices, including funds for public
charter schools and private school scholarships. It would reduce the federal payment
for security planning from $13.5 million to $8.5 million, and would eliminate
funding for bioterrorism preparedness activities and a forensic laboratory for the
District. It would provide no new congressional appropriations for the construction
of a nature trail along the Anacostia River, but directs the District to use unexpended
funds from previous years. Congress appropriated $3 million for this activity in the
FY2006 appropriations.


6 Prior to the 109th Congress, appropriations for the District of Columbia were handled by
a separate subcommittee. At the beginning of the 109th Congress, the House restructured
the appropriation subcommittees, abolishing the District of Columbia Subcommittee on
Appropriations and consolidating its activities into a larger Transportation, Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. The Senate undertook a similar restructuring, but
kept the District of Columbia Subcommittee as a stand-alone subcommittee.

House Bill General Provisions. The House version of H.R. 5576 includes
several provisions that District officials want eliminated or modified, including those
related to medical marijuana, abortion, and needle exchange. During consideration
of past District of Columbia appropriations acts, city officials have asked Congress
to eliminate the provision banning the use of medical marijuana. District officials
have also sought to win congressional approval for the lifting of restrictions on the
use of District funds for abortion services, and the removal of the provision
prohibiting the use of federal or District funds in support of a needle exchange
program. As approved by the House, H.R. 5576 would continue the restrictions and
prohibitions on the use of federal and District funds for medical marijuana, abortion
services, and needle exchange programs. Congress’s authority to ban the use of
medical marijuana, including the implementation of the District’s medical marijuana
initiative, was upheld by a June 6, 2005, Supreme Court decision. By a vote of six
to three, the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich7 that the federal government
could prohibit the possession and cultivation of marijuana in states that have
decriminalized its use as a medical or therapeutic treatment.
Senate Bill. On July 13, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee
approved and ordered reported the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for 2007,
S. 3660 (P.L. 109-281). The bill would appropriate $597 million in special federal
payments. This is $21.8 million more than recommended by the House and
approximately the same amount as appropriated in FY2006. There are several
differences between the Senate bill and provisions included in the House-passed
version of H.R. 5576. The Senate bill recommends $33.2 million for the city’s
college tuition assistance program, $1.9 million less than recommended by the House
bill and $332,000 less than appropriated in FY2006. The bill also includes $206.6
million in special federal payments for court operations, which is $13 million less
than recommended by the House. The Senate bill recommends funding for several
activities not included in the House version of H.R. 5576, including the following:
!$4.5 million for bioterrorism preparedness activities and a forensic
laboratory for the District;
!$5 million for the construction of a nature trail along the Anacostia
River;
!$2 million for improvements in the city’s foster care system;
!$4 million for improvements to the Navy Yard Metro Station;8
!$4 million for marriage development accounts, and
!$15 million for improvements to the city’s public library system.
Senate Bill General Provisions. Like the House bill, the Senate bill would
continue to prohibit the District from using local or federal funds to implement a
needle exchange program and a medical marijuana initiative. The bill includes
provisions that would continue to prohibit the use of District and federal funds for
abortion services, except in instances of rape or incest, or when pregnancy endangers
the life of the mother; and to promote statehood or voting representation in Congress.


7 Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. (2005).
8 The House version of H.R. 5576 would appropriate $20 million under the Department of
Transportation’s capital

Continuing Resolution. The 109th Congress failed to complete
consideration of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act before adjourning sine
die. Instead the Congress enacted a series of budget resolutions, the first included
as Division B of P.L. 109-289. The Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007(120
Stat. 1311) included provisions appropriating federal funds nder the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act at the lower of either the FY2006 level or the House-
passed FY2007 funding level (since the Senate did not pass an FY2007 District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for 2007). The Continuing Appropriations Resolution
also included a provision allowing the District to spend local funds for programs and
activities identified under the heading “District of Columbia Funds” under Title Vth
of H.R. 5576 (109 Congress) as passed by the House of Representatives, at a rate
set forth in the District’s FY2007 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan submitted to
the Congress on June 5, 2006. On December 9, 2006, Congress passed H.J.Res. 102
(P.L. 109-383), the third in a series of continuing resolutions, to provide funding
through February 15, 2007.
Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments Funds:
FY2007 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007
Programs Ena c t e dFY2006 City ’s a
Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
Resident Tuition Program32.86835.10035.10035.10033.200
Emergency Planning and Security13.3658.53315.0008.5338.533
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Forensic4.9500.00025.0000.0004.500a
Laboratory
Court Operations216.723196.629196.629219.629206.629
Court of Appeals[8.651][9.401][9.401][9.401][9.401]
Superior Court[86.795][89.646][89.646][89.646][89.646]
Court system[41.095][46.653][46.653][46.653][46.653]
Capital improvements[80.182][50.929][50.929][73.929][60.929]
Defender Services43.56043.47543.47543.47543.475
Court Services and Offender Supervisiona169.839181.653181.653181.653183.653
Agency for the District of Columbia
— Community Supervision and Sex[128.502][135.457][135.457][135.457][135.457]
Offender Registry
Pretrial Service Agency[41.337][46.196][46.196][46.196][46.196]
Public Defender Service29.53532.71032.71032.71032.710
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council1.2871.3001.3001.3001.300
Federal Water and Sewer Authority6.9307.0007.0007.0007.000
Payment
Anacostia River Walk and Trail2.9700.0005.0000.0005.000
Co nstr uc tio n
Transportation Downtown Circulator0.9900.0000.0000.0001.000
School Improvement Initiatives39.60040.80040.80040.80040.000



FY2007
Programs Ena c t e dFY2006 City ’s a
Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
Public school improvements[12.870][13.000][13.000][13.000][13.000]
Recruitment and training0.0000.0000.0000.000[5.000]
High Perform. Incentive Award0.0000.0000.0000.000[2.000]
— Advance placement training0.0000.0000.0000.000[5.500]
Master Education Plan 0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.500]
Public Charter School[12.870][13.000][13.000][13.000][13.000]
Direct Loan Fund0.0000.0000.0000.000[6.000]
City Build Charter School Fund0.0000.0000.0000.000[3.500]
— Public Education Improvement0.0000.0000.0000.000[1.000]
Incentive Award
— Quality Initiative0.0000.0000.0000.000[1.050]
Co-location Program 0.0000.0000.0000.000[1.000]
Administration0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.450
School Choice Scholarship Program[13.860][14.800][14.800][14.800][14.000]
(vouchers)
Admin. expen./assessment[0.990][1.800][1.800][1.800][1.000]
Navy Yard Metro Station0.00020.00020.0000.0004.000
Library Construction and Renovation0.00030.00030.0000.00015.000
Foster Care Improvements1.9800.0000.0000.0002.000
Child and Fam. Services[1.748]0.0000.0000.000[1.750]
Post adoption services[0.748]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Loan repay. to social workers[0.990]0.0000.0000.000[1.000]
— COG’s Respite Care and[0.249]0.0000.0000.000[0.250]
Recruitment
DC National Guard0.495 0.0000.3520.0000.000
Marriage Development and Improvement2.9700.0000.0000.0004.000
— Marriage Dev. Acct./ Cap. Area[1.485]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Asset Building Corp.
National Center for Fathering[0.841]0.0000.0000.0000.000
East Capitol Center for Change[0.644]0.0000.0000.0000.000
CFO 28.908 0.000 0.000 5.000 5.000
EDUCATION/CULTURAL/CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAMS
— Apple Tree Institute early literacy[0.149]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Camp Arena Stage[0.990]0.0000.0000.0000.000
— Caribbean Amer. Mission for Edu.[0.198]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Research (higher education)
— Center for Inspired Teaching[0.445]0.0000.0000.000[0.050]
Centro Nia/ early childhood edu.[0.198]0.0000.0000.000[0.100]



FY2007
Programs Ena c t e dFY2006 City ’s a
Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
— City Year’s Reading for[0.149]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Success/liter acy
College Bound0.0000.0000.000[0.150]0.000
— Congressional Cemetery[1.980]0.0000.0000.0000.000
P r eservation
DC Children and Youth Investment0.0000.0000.000[0.125]0.000
Trust Corporation
DC Pearls III (college prep. prog.)[0.049]0.0000.0000.0000.000
DC Public Charter School Assoc.[0.149]0.0000.0000.0000.000
— Discovery Creek Childrens[0.198]0.0000.0000.000[0.100]
Museum
Everybody Wins0.0000.0000.000[0.050]0.000
Girl Scout Council[0.396]0.0000.0000.000[0.100]
Jump Start [0.198]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Historic building restoration0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.500]
Jewish Council for Pub. Affairs0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
International Youth Service[0.990]0.0000.0000.0000.000
— KIPP DC: Public and Charter0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.400]
School Partnership
Lab School[0.049]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Les Aspin Center[0.198]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Love of Children/Thurgood[0.495]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Marshall Ctr. Youth Tech. Prog.
— National Capital Childrens[0.248]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Museum
— National Childrens Alliance0.0000.0000.000[0.200]0.000
— Nat. Council of La Raza DC0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.350]
Nat. Hist. Trust Lincoln Cottage[0.990]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Resto r atio n
Perry School Comm. Serv. [0.149]0.0000.000[0.050]0.000
— Public School Library Initiative[0.099]0.0000.000[1.000]0.000
ReadNet Foundation[0.300]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Sewall Belmont House and Museum[0.099]0.0000.0000.0000.000
STEED Youth Edu. and Rec.[0.297]0.0000.000[0.050]0.000
Southeast Univ. E-Learning[0.249]0.0000.000[0.250]0.000
program
Southeastern Univ. Capital Improv.0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.100]
— Teacher Advancement Prog.[0.099]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Thurgood Marshall Academy[0.495]0.0000.0000.0000.000



FY2007
Programs Ena c t e dFY2006 City ’s a
Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
Voyager Expanded Learning[0.173]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Washington Latin Charter School0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.050]
Washington Jesuit Academy[0.248]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Washington National Opera0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.050]
— Youth Leadership Foundatiion[0.198]0.0000.0000.000[0.200]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORTATION
— DC Dept of Transp. Foxhall Rd.[0.248]0.0000.0000.0000.000
improv.
Eastern Market Renovation[0.198]0.0000.000[0.100]0.000
Georgetown Circulator[0.495]0.0000.000[0.200]0.000
— Water and Sewer Authority water[0.198]0.0000.0000.0000.000
stud y
— WMATA antennae replacement[0.445]0.0000.0000.0000.000
HEALTH, HOUSING, AND SOCIAL SERVICES
— All Faith Consortium (substance[0.099]0.0000.0000.0000.000
abuse/homeless veterans)
— ARISE life skills for at-risk youth[0.248]0.0000.0000.0000.000
— Arthritis Foundaton, Metro Wash.[0.197]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Capital Area Food Bank[1.287]0.0000.000[0.125]0.000
Childrens Health Fund/van[0.149]0.0000.0000.0000.000
— Childrens National Medical Center[4.950]0.0000.0000.000[0.500]
capital improvements
Childrens Hospital/cord blood bank[0.297]0.0000.0000.000[0.250]
for African American children
— Children’s Res. Inst. (muscular[0.149]0.0000.0000.0000.000
dystrophy research)
Community Youth Connection[0.198]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Congressional Glaucoma Caucus[0.248]0.0000.0000.0000.000
DC Cares [0.102]0.0000.0000.0000.000
DC Humane Society[0.099]0.0000.0000.0000.000
DC Primary Care Assoc.[0.495]0.0000.0000.0000.000
ER One[0.990]0.0000.0000.0000.000
— East of the River (prisoner re-entry[0.297]0.0000.0000.0000.000
ho usi ng)
— Family Communications/education[0.099]0.0000.0000.0000.000
material for child care
— Father McKenna Center/homeless[0.099]0.0000.0000.000[0.100]
me n
Food and Friends0.0000.0000.000[0.150]0.000



FY2007
Programs Ena c t e dFY2006 City ’s a
Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
— G. Washington Cancer Institute0.0000.0000.000[0.325]0.000
Gospel Rescue Mission0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.100]
Green Door for the Homeless0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.100]
Kidsave DC Weekend Miracles 0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.100]
— Marys Center for Maternity and0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.200]
Child Health
My Sister’s Place[0.198]0.0000.0000.0000.000
— N Street Village0.0000.0000.000[0.400]0.000
— Nat’l Camp. to Prevent Teen[0.297]0.0000.0000.000[0.100]
Pregnancy / Uhlich Children’s
Advantage Network
— St. Coletta construction of facilities[0.990]0.0000.0000.0000.000
for services to mentally retarded and
multi-ha nd icap p e d
Poison Control 0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.250
— Teen Connection (teen pregnancy[0.495]0.0000.0000.0000.000
prevention)
— Unity HealthCare med. care0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.250]
tr acking
Whitman Walker Clinic[0.644]0.0000.000[0.375][0100]
Washington Area Women’s[0.990]0.0000.0000.000[0.500]
Foundation (stepping stones)
PUBLIC SAFETY
Metro. Police bullet proof vest0.0000.0000.000[0.300]0.000
Boys and Girls Club gang[0.297]0.0000.0000.0000.000
prevention program
— Boys and Girls Club facilities repair0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.200]
East of the River Police/Clergy 0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.200]
JOB TRAINING
Amer. Community Partnership[0.248]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Catalyst Capital City Careers Prog.[0.198]0.0000.0000.0000.000
— Excel Institute[1.199]0.0000.000[0.950]0.000
Latin Amer. Youth Ctr. YouthBuild[0.198]0.0000.0000.0000.000
MenzFit0.0000.0000.000[0.100]0.000
National Center for Manufacturing [0.720]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Sciences Tech. Transfer Partnership
— Second Chance Employ. Service for[0.446]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Women
See Forever Employ. Training[0.099]0.0000.0000.0000.000
RECREATION AND CONSERVATION



FY2007
Programs Ena c t e dFY2006 City ’s a
Admin.BudgetHouse Senate Conf.
Anacostia Waterfront Initiative0.0000.0000.000[0.100]0.000
— Capitol Hill Baseball and Softball[0.049]0.0000.0000.0000.000
League/capital improvements
Earth Conservation Corps[0.495]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Friends of Carter Barron[0.099]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Friends of Ft. Dupont Ice Arena[0.490]0.0000.0000.0000.000
Capital Improvements
Youth Baseball Partnership with0.0000.0000.0000.000[0.050]
Payne Elementary
Total federal payments596.970597.200634.019575.200597.000
Note: Due to rounding, numbers in columns may not sum to subtotals and totals.
As submitted by the District and approved by the House of Representatives and
the Senate, the District’s operating budget totals $9.1 billion for FY2007. This
includes $7.751 billion in operating funds and $1.486 billion in enterprise funds. The
budget also provides $2.341 billion in capital outlays, including $63 million to
finance the construction of a new baseball stadium.
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds
(in millions of dollars)
FY2007 a
ProgramsEnactedFY2006DistrictHouse Senate Conference
General Fund
Governmental Direction and Support769.418542.505542.505542.505
Economic Dev. and Regulation452.328543.135543.135543.135
Public Safety and Justice846.466949.393949.393949.393
Public Education System1,509.3811,415.3331,415.3331,415.333
Human Support Services2,825.0402,923.1712,923.1712,923.171
Public Works396.329424.708424.708424.708
Cash Reserve Fund50.00050.00050.00050.000
Revised Revenue Estimate Contingency0.0000.0000.0000.000
Repayment of Loans and Interest370.778405.114405.114405.114
Payment of Interest on Short Term5.5008.0008.0008.000
Borrowing
One Judiciary Square Certificate of15.00033.22531.22531.225
P a r ticip atio n
Settlements and Judgments20.65515.65515.65515.655
Wilson Building3.7404.2114.2114.211
Workforce Investments61.11038.50038.50038.500
Non-Departmental Agency37.28645.94245.94245.942
Emergency Planning and Security Costs0.0000.0000.0000.000
Tax Increment Financing 0.0000.0000.0000.000
Equipment Lease 35.44143.95543.95543.955



a
ProgramsEnactedFY2006FY2007DistrictHouse Senate Conference
Emer. and Contingency Reserve Fund0.0000.0000.0000.000
Pay-As-You-Go Capital262.32387.98787.98787.987
Pay-As-You-Go Contingency0.0000.0000.0000.000
DC Retiree Health Contribution138.0004.7004.7004.700
School Modernization Fund12.2081.6501.6501.650
Repayment of Revenue Bonds0.0006.0006.0006.000
Debt Service Issuance Costs40.00030.00030.00030.000
General Fund Total Operating7,851.0037,571,1847,571,1847,571,184
Expenses
Enterprise Funds
Water and Sewer Auth.295.710311.642311.642311.642
Washington Aqueduct50.512143.174143.174143.174
Stormwater Permit Compliance 6.6737.0007.0007.000
Lottery and Charitable Games251.000256.00256.00256.000
Sports and Enter. Commission339.630195.314195.314195.314
DC Retirement Board30.07834.42334.42334.423
Convention Center Enterprise Fund78.90080.23880.23880.238
National Capital Revitalization52.73151.59251.59251.592
Co rporatio n
Univ. District of Columbia102.200100.095100.095100.095
Unemply. Insur. Trust Fund180.000180.000180.000180.000
Other Post Employee Benefits Trust1.1001.2651.2651.265
Fund
Anacostia Waterfront Corp. 8.2005.0005.0005.000
Housing Production Trust Fund0.000120.418120.418120.418
DC Public Library Trust 0.0170.0170.0170.017
Total Enterprise Funds1,396.7511,486.1781,486.1781,486.178
Total Operating Expenses9,247.7549,057.3629,057.3629,057.362
Capital Outlays
General Fund2,525.6052,341.1752,341.1752,341.175
Baseball Stadium Financing [534.800][63.000][63.000][63.000]
Total Capital Outlays2,525.6052,341.1752,341.1752,341.175
Total District of Columbia Funds11,773.35911,398.53711,398.53711,398.537
Note: Due to rounding, numbers in columns may not sum to subtotals and totals.
a. Does not include intra-District transfer of funds.
Key Policy Issues
Needle Exchange
Whether to continue a needle exchange program or whether to use federal or
District funds is one of several key policy issues that Congress faces in reviewing the
District’s appropriations for FY2007. 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 the government sanctioning
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 focuses 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; it also restricted the location of
privately funded needle exchange activities. 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 it prohibits the use of both District and federal funds for such activities.
At present, 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 required such entities to track and
account for the use of public and private funds.
During consideration of the FY2004 District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
District officials unsuccessfully sought to lift the prohibition on the use of District
funds for needle exchange programs. A Senate provision, which was not adopted,
proposed prohibiting only the use of federal funds for a needle exchange program
and allowing the use of District funds. The House and final conference versions of
the FY2004 bill allowed the use of private funds for needle exchange programs and
required private and public entities that receive federal or District funds in support
of other activities or programs to account for the needle exchange funds separately.
For FY2007, the District is again seeking to lift the restriction on the use of local
funds to finance a needle exchange program. The President’s budget proposal for
FY2007 includes a provision that would continue to prohibit the use of District and
federal funds in support of a needle exchange program. H.R. 5576 as approved by
the House on June 14, 2006, and S. 3660 as reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee also includes a provision that would have retained the current law
prohibiting the use of federal and District funds for a needle exchange program.



Medical Marijuana
The city’s medical marijuana initiative is another issue that engenders
controversy. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277
(112 Stat. 2681-150), included a provision that prohibited the city from counting
ballots of a 1998 voter-approved initiative that would have allowed the medical use
of marijuana to assist persons suffering from 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 DC Chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). On September 17, 1999, District Court Judge Richard
Roberts ruled that Congress, despite its 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.9 This ruling allowed
the city to tally the votes from 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 (113 Stat. 1530), the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000. Opponents of the provision
contend that such congressional actions undercut the concept of home rule.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96 (115
Stat. 953) included a provision that continued to prohibit the District government
from implementing the initiative. Congress’s 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 another 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 appropriations 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.10 The judge stated that the effect of the amendment was to restrict
the plaintiff’s First Amendment right 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 appeals court issued its ruling on September 19, 2002, which
was the deadline for printing ballots for the November 2002 general election.


9 Turner v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, No. 98-2634 Civ. (D.D.C.
Sept. 17, 1999; memorandum opinion).
10 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 judgment). 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.

More recently, on June 6, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a six-to-three decision,
ruled that Congress possessed the constitutional authority under the Commerce
clause to regulate or prohibit the interstate marketing of both legal and illegal drugs.
This includes banning the possession of drugs in states11 and the District of Columbia
that have decriminalized or permitted the use of marijuana for medical or therapeutic
purposes. 12
H.R. 5576 as passed by the House and S. 3660 as reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee would continue to prohibit the use of federal and District
funds to implement a medical marijuana ballot initiative. During its consideration
of the District budget for FY2007, the city council included language that would
prohibit the use of federal, but not District, funds to implement the 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 (115 Stat. 950), included
a provision prohibiting the use of federal or District funds for abortion services,
except in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, or the pregnancy was
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 (110 Stat.1321-91).


Since 1979, with the passage of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of
1980, P.L. 96-93 (93 Stat. 719), 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 was endangered, or the pregnancy resulted from rape or
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 (102 Stat. 2269-9), 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 were 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


11 Eleven states allow medical marijuana usage or limit the penalty for such use: Alaska,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and
Washington.
12 Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. (2005). For additional information, see CRS Report
RS22167, Gonzales v. Raich: Congress’s Power Under the Commerce Clause to Regulate
Medical Marijuana, by Todd B. Tatelman.

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 (103 Stat. 1278), 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 sought 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 (107 Stat. 1350). 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,
however; the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134
(110 Stat. 1321-91), 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 was endangered or cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
The House version of the TTHUD Appropriations Act for FY2007, H.R. 5576, and
the S. 3660 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee include a provision
that would continue to prohibit the use of both District and federal funds for abortion
services, except in instances of rape or incest, or when pregnancy endangers the life
of the mother. During its consideration of the District budget for FY2007, the city
council included language that would prohibit the use of federal, but not District,
funds to provide abortion services.
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act
(Domestic Partners Program)
P.L. 107-96 included 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


13 “District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol.
XLIV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988), p. 713.
14 “D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac,
vol. XLV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), p. 757.
15 On Sept. 20, 2001, the House Appropriations Committee approved, by a vote of 28 to 21,
an amendment introduced by Reps. 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 Sept. 25,
2001, during House consideration of H.R. 2944, the House version of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, Rep. 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.

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 was not
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 cohabiting,
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 visiting rights. Under the law, a District government employee enrolled in
the District of Columbia Employees Health Benefits Program is allowed to purchase
family health insurance coverage that would cover the employee’s family members,
including a domestic partner.
Opponents of the act maintain that it devalues the institution of marriage, and
that the act grants unmarried gay and heterosexual couples the same standing as
married couples. At least one bill, H.R. 72, introduced in the 109th Congress by
Representative JoAnn Davis and others on January 4, 2005, would define marriage
in the District of Columbia as a union between a man and a woman.16 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 autonomy. Supporters
of health care benefits for domestic partners note that as of 2004, 11 states and the
District of Columbia, 185 local governments, and more than 8,000 companies,
colleges, and universities offered health insurance benefits to domestic partners.17
The House version of the TTHUD Appropriations Act for FY2007, consistent
with the provision first included in the District’s FY2002 Appropriations Act,
includes a general provision that allows the use of District, but not federal, funds to
administer the program.
Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support
The District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Grant (DCTAG) program supports
the postsecondary education of undergraduate students who are residents of the
District of Columbia by providing grants that may be applied toward the costs of
tuition and fees at institutions of higher education.18 In particular, the program


16 Several House and Senate resolutions (H.J.Res. 39, H.J.Res. 88, H.J.Res. 91, S.J.Res. 1,
and S.J.Res. 13) were introduced in the 109th Congress proposing a constitutional
amendment defining marriage. For a discussion of legal issues surrounding same sex
marriage see CRS Report RL31994, Same-Sex Marriages: Legal Issues, by Alison M.
Smith.
17 Human Rights Campaign Foundation, “The State of the Workplace for Gay, Lesbian, and
Transgender Americans: 2004,” available at [http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/
Publications1/State_of_the_Workplace/Workplace0603.pdf], visited June 22, 2005.
18 The DCTAG program was enacted under P.L. 106-98 (113 Stat. 1323) and amended under
P.L. 107-157 (116 Stat. 118). For additional information on the DCTAG program, see CRS
(continued...)

affords undergraduate students the benefit of in-state tuition and fees at public
institutions located outside the District of Columbia. Students enrolled in public
institutions may receive grants of up to $10,000 per year to pay the difference
between in-state and out-of-state tuition and fees, with a maximum cumulative award
of $50,000. Students enrolled in private institutions located in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area and any Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
also may receive grants under the program, but awards are limited to $2,500 per year,
with a maximum cumulative award of $12,500.
For the first five years of the program (FY2000 through FY2004), it was funded
at $17 million per year. After the program had carried a full five cohorts of students,
funding was increased for FY2005 ($25.4 million) and for FY2006 ($33.2 million).
The total number of students served by the program has steadily increased from 1,948
in 2000-2001 (FY2000) to 5,046 in 2005-2006 (FY2005). In testimony before the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District
of Columbia, Mayor Anthony A. Williams expressed concern that unless the DCTAG
program is funded at above $33.2 million, it might be necessary to limit services or
eligibility.19
H.R. 5576 would provide $35.1 million for the DCTAG program, whereas S.
3660 would provide $33.2 million. Both bills would permit the prioritization of
awards under the DCTAG program on the basis of academic merit, income and need,
and other factors as may be authorized. This authority could be used to limit the
number of students awarded grants if available funding became constrained. Under
both bills, administrative expenses would be capped at $1.2 million.
Federal Payment for K-12 School Improvement
Beginning with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199), a
federal payment for school improvement has been included as part of each year’s
District of Columbia appropriations act. As part of this payment, funding has been
provided for three activities: (1) for the District of Columbia Public Schools to
improve public education, (2) for the State Education Office to expand public charter
schools, and (3) for the Secretary of the Department of Education to fund opportunity
scholarships (private school vouchers) under the DC School Choice Incentive Act
(which was enacted as part of P.L. 108-199). Funding for these activities has been
provided to show a commitment toward supporting school improvement in
traditional public schools and public charter schools, while also demonstrating and
evaluating the effectiveness of fostering school improvement through a scholarship
or voucher program in which students receive public funding to support their
enrollment in private schools.


18 (...continued)
Report RS20646, District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program, by Bonnie Mangan.
19 “Enhancing Educational and Economic Opportunity in the District of Columbia,”
Testimony of Mayor Anthony A. Williams, Feb. 28, 2005, at [http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/

022806Williams.pdf], visited June 21, 2006.



H.R. 5576 would appropriate $40.8 million for school improvement, including
$13.0 million for the District of Columbia public schools, $13.0 million for public
charter schools, and $14.8 million for school vouchers under the DC School Choice
Incentive Act. S. 3660 would appropriate $40.0 million for K-12 school
improvement, with $13.0 million for public school improvement, $13.0 million for
public charter schools, and $14.0 million for the school voucher program. The House
bill would permit up to $1.8 million of the amount provided for the voucher program
to be used to administer and fund assessments, whereas the Senate bill would permit
the use of $1.0 million for that purpose.
DC School Choice Incentive Act. Under this program, funds are
appropriated to the Secretary of the Department of Education to fund the operation
of a five-year demonstration scholarship program that enables children from low-
income families in the District of Columbia to attend private elementary or secondary
schools located in the District. Students who are District of Columbia residents and
who are from families with incomes not exceeding 185% of the poverty level are
eligible to apply for scholarships valued at up to $7,500 to cover the costs of tuition,
fees, and transportation expenses associated with attending a participating private
elementary or secondary school located in the District of Columbia. Students are
selected to receive scholarships through a lottery. Scholarship recipients remain
eligible to continue to participate in the program in subsequent years, so long as their
family income does not exceed 200% of the poverty level. Students enrolled in
public schools identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
under Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are given priority in
receiving scholarships (through weighting procedures in the lottery); however, all
students meeting program eligibility criteria are eligible for scholarships regardless20
of whether they were previously enrolled in public or private schools.
The demonstration project includes an evaluation component. Among the issues
required to be evaluated as part of the program are the academic achievement of
scholarship recipients compared with non-recipients, the success of the program in
expanding school choice options, and the impact of the program on students and21
public schools in the District of Columbia. As of the 2005-2006 school year, 68 of
the 109 private schools located in the District of Columbia had elected to participate
in the program. By Fall 2005, a total of 4,047 eligible students had applied for
scholarships under the program, and 1,716 scholarship recipients had been enrolled
in 60 participating private schools. Approximately 10% of the estimated 40,500
students eligible to participate in the program have applied for scholarships.22


20 For a review of the program and policy issues raised prior to its enactment, see CRS
Report RL32019, Proposals to Establish a K-12 Scholarship or Voucher Program in the
District of Columbia: Policy Issues and Analysis, by David P. Smole.
21 P.L. 108-199 § 309(a)(4), 118 Stat. 132.
22 The first-year evaluation report was released in April 2006. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship
Program: Second Year Report on Participation, by Patrick Wolf, Babette Gutmann,
Michael Puma, and Marsha Silverberg (Washington: GPO, 2006).

H.R. 5576 would appropriate $14.8 million for the program, of which up to $1.8
million may be used to fund assessments. S. 3660 would appropriate $14.0 million
for the program, of which up to $1.0 million may be used for assessments. The
Senate bill also would allow students who received scholarships in either the 2004-
2005 or the 2005-2006 school year to remain eligible to receive a scholarship in a
succeeding year provided that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
student is from a household with an income not in excess of 300% of the poverty
line. The increased income eligibility thresholds proposed in S. 3660 were
incorporated into the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 (H.R. 6111), as passed
by the House and Senate. These changes will allow children from the first two
cohorts of the program whose family income increased above the initial threshold to
remain in the program. Selected multiples of the 2006 poverty guidelines are
presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Selected Multiples of 2006 Poverty Guidelines
Persons inPoverty185% ofPoverty200% ofPoverty300% ofPoverty
Family Guideline Guideline Guideline Guideline
2 $13,200 $24,420 $26,400 $39,600
3 $16,600 $30,710 $33,200 $49,800
4 $20,000 $37,000 $40,000 $60,000
5 $23,400 $43,290 $46,800 $70,200
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, “Annual Update of the
HHS Poverty Guidelines,” Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 15, Jan. 24, 2006, at
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06fedreg.pdf], visited July 26, 2006; CRS analysis.
Establishment of Academic Year As Fiscal Year
for District of Columbia Schools
In the District of Columbia, local educational agencies (LEAs) — the District
of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) and public charter schools — are fiscally
dependent on the District of Columbia government.23 The fiscal year for the District
of Columbia government and its subordinate entities currently runs from October 1
to September 30, with the fiscal year being designated by the calendar year in which
it ends.24 Under this schedule, the fiscal year for public schools begins more than a


23 A fiscally dependent LEA is a component part of a general purpose unit of a state or local
government. In some states, LEAs are fiscally independent, meaning that they are
independent units of local government with authority to levy taxes and establish their own
budgets.
24 District of Columbia Official Code § 1-204.41. An exception applies to the Armory
Board, whose fiscal year runs from January 1 to December 31.

month after the start of the academic year. In most states, the fiscal year for public
school systems runs from July 1 to June 30.25
The 2004 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act, P.L. 108-368 (118
Stat. 2230), amended the D.C. Official Code to provide that beginning with FY2007,
the fiscal year for DCPS, public charter schools, and the University of the District of
Columbia (UDC) would be from July 1 through June 30. The District of Columbia
government and DCPS were not, however, on schedule to complete the transition to
the new fiscal year calendar for FY2007. Under P.L. 109-356, the District of
Columbia Official Code was amended to provide that beginning with FY2007, the
fiscal year for DPCS, public charter schools, and UDC may be from July 1 through
June 30.
On February 28, 2006, Mayor Anthony Williams testified that changing the
fiscal year for DCPS to a time period different from the fiscal year of the rest of the
District of Columbia government may prevent the District of Columbia from being
in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). He further
stated that this would result in the District of Columbia government’s audit report for
FY2007 containing a qualification based on a departure from GAAP and
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) requirements.26 He also noted
that it may cost up to $15 million to complete the transition from one fiscal year
calendar to another.
Changing the fiscal year from the period of October 1 through September 30 to
the period of July 1 though June 30 also would require a “transition” fiscal year.
Presumably, the transition fiscal year would be a nine month fiscal year the last year
before commencing to operate on a July 1 to June 30 fiscal year. If the District of
Columbia proceeds to transition certain education agencies from one fiscal year
calendar to another, consideration may need to be given to whether adjustments need
to be made in the amounts appropriated to fund them during a nine-month fiscal year.


25 U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division, Public Education Finances, 2004, March

2006, p. v., at [http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/school/04f33pub.pdf], visited June 27, 2006.


26 Testimony of Anthony A. Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia, “Enhancing
Educational and Economic Opportunity in the District of Columbia,” before the United
States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee
on Oversight of Government Management, and Federal Workforce, and the District of
Columbia, Feb. 28, 2006, at [http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=
Hearings.Detail&HearingID=323], visited June 27, 2006.