APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY2001: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CRS Report for Congress
Updated November 27, 2000
Eugene Boyd
Analyst
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, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded 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
Appropriations Subcommittees on the District of Columbia Appropriations. 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.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]



Appropriations for FY2001: District of Columbia
Summary
On February 7, 2000, President Clinton submitted his budget recommendations
for FY2001. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $ 445 million in federal
payments and assistance to the District of Columbia. On March 13, 2000, D.C.
Mayor Anthony Williams submitted his proposed budget for FY2001. The proposed
budget included $4.7 billion in general fund expenditures and $695 million in
enterprise funds. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance Authority (Authority), on June 7, 2000, approved a budget compromise
reached by the city council and the mayor, which includes $137 million more in
funding for public education than appropriated for FY2000, and $47 million more
than requested by the mayor. In addition, the city’s budget appropriates $214.6
million for economic development, which is $24 million more than appropriated in
FY2000, and $197.8 million for governmental support activities, which is $62.0
million more than appropriated in FY2000.
The District budget, which must be approved by Congress, requests $445 million
in special federal payments. On September 27, 2000, the Senate completed action on
its version of the District’s Appropriations Act for FY2001, H.R. 4942 (previously
S. 3041), which includes $445 million in special federal payments. On September 14,

2000, the House passed its version of the District’s appropriation bill, H.R. 4942,


which includes $414 million in special federal payments to the District. On October
26, 2000, the House approved a conference version of H.R. 4942, which included
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State. The
conference bill includes $448 million in special payments to the District.
Earlier this year District residents approved by referendum an amendment to the
District’s home rule charter that restructures the city’s Board of Education. The
charter amendment reconfigures the school board from an 11 member panel with eight
members elected by ward and 3 at-large to a board comprising five elected members
and four members appointed by the mayor. The referendum, which was approved by
voters on June 27, 2000, will give the mayor greater influence over education policy,
funding, and resource allocation through his appointed members on the Board of
Education. It also means the mayor assumes greater accountability for the state of the
city’s public schools.
In addition, the council must complete its work on revising sentencing guidelines
governing convicted felons as mandated by the National Capital Revitalization Act of
1997, P.L. 105-33. The 1997 Act transferred to the federal government funding
responsibility for criminal justice activities. These activities account for $244.9
million (55%) of the total $445 million in requested special federal payments. This
report will be updated to reflect the latest action affecting the District’s FY2001
appropriations.



Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise NameCRS DivisionTelephone
DC EducationCarol GloverDSP7-7353
DC CorrectionsJoAnne O’BryantDSP7-6819
DC CourtsSteve RutkusGF.7-7162
DC-Federal Fiscal RelationsNonna A. NotoGF.7-7826
DC Politics and GovernanceEugene BoydGF7-8689
DSP= Domestic Social Policy Division, GF=Government and Finance Division



Contents
Most Recent Developments........................................1
Background .................................................... 2
District of Columbia Financial Condition..........................2
Public Education............................................4
School Board Reform.....................................4
Support for Charter Schools................................6
Special Education........................................6
Voting Rights Challenge......................................7
Receiverships ............................................... 8
Housing Authority.......................................9
Child and Family Services.................................10
Mental Health Services...................................10
District Columbia Jail Medical Services......................11
Criminal Justice............................................11
Lorton Inmate Transfers..................................11
Advisory Commission on Sentencing........................12
Parole ............................................... 13
Budget Request................................................13
No Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000.....................13
FY2001: The President’s Budget Request........................13
FY2001: District’s Budget Request.............................13
General Provisions for FY2001............................17
Congressional Action on the Budget............................18
FY2001 302(b) Suballocation.................................18
FY2001: House Bill, H.R. 4942................................18
House Appropriations Committee..........................18
House Floor Action.....................................19
Senate Bill S. 3041/H.R. 4942.................................20
Senate Appropriations Committee..........................20
Senate Floor Action.....................................21
Conference and Final Action: H.R. 4942 and H.R. 5633..............21
Federal Funds..........................................22
Local Funds...........................................22
General Provisions......................................22
List of Figures
Figure 1. Year-end General Fund Balance: FY1997-FY1999 Actual; and
FY2000 Projected...........................................3
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2001............1
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special Federal Payment Funds:
Proposed and Final FY2001 Appropriations.......................14
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds: Proposed and Final
Appropriations for FY2001...................................24



Appropriations for FY2001: District of Columbia
Most Recent Developments
On November 22, 2000, President Clinton signed P.L. 106-522 (formerly H.R.
5633), an act appropriating funds for the District of Columbia for FY2001. In one
of the actions it took between election day on November 7, 2000, and the
Thanksgiving holiday, the House and the Senate approved H.R. 5633 by unanimous
consent. An earlier version of the act, H.R. 4942, was approved by the Senate on
October 27, 2000, and by the House on October 26, 2000. However, the conference
version of H.R. 4942 included funding for Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State. The President in a letter dated October 26, 2000, indicated that he would veto
an otherwise acceptable District of Columbia Appropriations Act because of
objections surrounding the inclusion of Commerce, Justice, and State
appropriations to the act. These include issues relating to immigration, tobacco
litigation, hate crimes, the sale and display of social security numbers, Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund, and number of riders characterized by the Administration as
anti-environmental and anti-competitive. On September 27, 2000, the Senate passed
its version of H.R. 4942, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act forFY2001,
two-weeks after the House approved its version of the bill on September 14, 2000.
The House bill includes $414 million in special federal payments to the District of
Columbia. The Senate bill includes $448 million in special federal payments to the
District. A significant percentage of these payments is for court operations and
criminal justice activities. The city’s general fund budget, as passed by the council
and approved by the control board, includes increased funding for public education
and economic development. On June 7, 2000, the District of Columbia Financial
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority approved a city council-passed
budget for the 2001 fiscal year. The $5.5 billion operating budget, which must be
approved by Congress, includes $445.4 million in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia.
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2001
Confer. Report
Approved
HouseHouse Senate Senate Conf..Pres.
Report Passage Report Passage Report ActionSenate House Senate
9/13/00H.Rept.9/14/00S.Rept.9/27/00 H.Rept.10/26/0010/27/00vetoed
106-786 106-409 106-1005

11/14/0011/14/00P.L. 106-522



Background
On November 29, 1999, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations
Act for FY2000, P.L. 106-113. Division A of this act appropriated funds for the
District of Columbia for FY2000. Since the passage of the Act, District of Columbia
voters, their elected leadership, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority (the Authority), and Congress have taken actions
that will affect the structure and efficacy of the District government. These changes
include:
!improvements in the city’s financial condition, including the city’s
third consecutive year with a budget surplus; and
!proposed amendments in the city’s home rule charter that would
change the size and composition of the Board of Education (Board).
These changes have been accompanied by: a controversial 13-week delay in
completion of the city’s annual financial report; debate concerning structure,
composition, and effectiveness of elected versus appointed school boards; and the
resignations of the city’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the superintendent of
public schools. In addition, the District government has had to address problems
related to special education, foster care, Medicare fraud, and court operations.
During the last year, the Authority’s role has evolved from that of direct
management of the daily operations of the city’s nine largest agencies to one of
exercising oversight of the District government. This transition has been aided by
congressional support for Mayor Williams’ government reform efforts, as evidenced
by congressional passage of the District of Columbia Management Reform Act of
1999, P.L. 106-1. The Act, which was signed March 5, 1999, transferred direct
administrative authority for the District’s nine largest agencies from the Authority to
the mayor.
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 (CFO). The Authority and CFO are charged with improving the delivery of
city services, and returning the District of Columbia to a position of financial
solvency. Working in concert with the District’s elected political leadership, the
Authority and the CFO have implemented a series of financial and management
reforms and have improved tax collection. These reforms, federal assistance, and an
improved economy have resulted in three consecutive years of budget surpluses. P.L.
104-8 requires the District to produce four consecutive years of balanced budgets as
a prerequisite for the abolition of the Authority and the return of home rule.



The District ended FY1997 with a surplus of $185,900,000. For FY1998, the
city’s budget surplus was $112,492,000.1 After a 13-week delay, the city’s CFO
reported a FY1999 surplus of a $86.4 million after subtracting a $35 million payment
to the retirement of the city’s long-term debt. The CFO’s delay in releasing the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) strained the CFO’s relationship with
the mayor, the city council, the control board, and the private firm charged with
conducting the annual audit. The 13-week delay in the CFO’s release of the report–
due February 1, 2000, but not released until April 29, 2000– triggered criticism of the
CFO’s leadership, and eventually contributed to her resignation. In a February 28,

2000, letter to the Authority, eight members of the council requested her dismissal.


Council members cited the CFO’s failure to:
!meet the statutory deadline for the CAFR;
!produce trial balances during FY1999;
!adequately ensure that District of Columbia staff participated in
training on the new financial management system; and notify elected
official of the CAFR delay.
On June 13, 2000, during testimony before the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Alice Rivlin, the chair of the Authority,
noted that the District is anticipating a budget surplus of $57 million for FY2000, and
a projected accumulated general fund balance for FY2001 of $260 to $270 million.


Figure 1. Year-end General Fund Balance: FY1997-FY1999 Actual;
and FY2000 Projected
1 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 federal share for
Medicaid from 50% to 70%, and transferred responsibility for housing District felons to the
federal government.

Public Education
Like so many District government institutions, the city’s public education system
has experienced changes during the past year, and will face challenges in the coming
months. Reforming the city’s Board of Education, improving the performance of
public school students, continuing support of charter schools as an alternative, hiring
a new superintendent, and addressing the problems of special education students are
but a few of the challenges that must be addressed.
School Board Reform. In 1999, members of the Board of Education clashed
over allegations that Board of Education Chair Wilma Harvey improperly used school
board personnel for personal projects. Eventually, the Board replaced Harvey as
chair and installed Robert Childs, an at-large member, as chair. The chairmanship
controversy jeopardized the scheduled June 30, 2000, transfer of administrative
authority to the existing school board, and refocused city and congressional attention
on the need to reform what many perceive as a flawed and ineffective institution.
The direction of school board reform in the District of Columbia, including the
size of the school board, and whether to elect or to appoint school board members,
has been a hotly debated topic that was decided by the voters (51% for the hybrid
Board of Education and 49% against) in a referendum vote on June 27, 2000. Much
of the debate on elected-versus-appointed boards involves matters of accountability,2
democracy, efficacy, and expertise. Supporters of an elected board believe that such
boards are directly accountable and sensitive to the concerns of residents because they
are democratically elected. Detractors argue that elected boards, particularly those
elected by ward or district, are too parochial in their focus, and too partisan in their
politics. School boards, they offer, often serve as a political training ground for
persons with higher political aspirations who are more interested in building a political
base than in improving the schools.
Supporters of appointed boards contend that appointed board members are more
likely to bring education or other expertise to the board’s deliberations, and are less
likely to be subjected to, or swayed by, partisan or parochial pressures to protect the
interest of a particular group in order to win political advantage. Detractors argue
that appointed boards are subject to patronage and are selected in an undemocratic
fashion.
The mayor and the city council settled on a hybrid board comprising both elected
and appointed members after considering and rejecting proposals that would have:
!allowed the mayor to appoint the superintendent and a five-member
Board of Education; transferred control of the schools, including the
hiring and firing of the superintendent, to the mayor for a specific


2 Many of the issues surrounding elected versus appointed school boards were outlined in a
September 9, 1999, report by the Appleseed Center entitled Reforming the D.C. Board of
Education: A Building Block for Better Public Schools. The Appleseed Center is nonprofit,
nonpartisan, public interest organization dedicated to addressing systemic management and
financial problems of he District of Columbia.

period after declaring a state of emergency, and then returning power
to a restructured and smaller seven member elected board;
!reduced the Board of Education from 11 to seven elected members;
and allowed District residents to choose between a nine-member
elected school board and a five-member board appointed by the
mayor.
The latter proposal, which was initially approved by the city council on February
1, 2000, was criticized by Alice Rivlin, the chair of the Authority, who argued that a
referendum fight over an elected versus appointed board would be divisive. She
urged the council and the mayor to support a single plan or face the possibility of
Authority or congressional action.
On February 17, 2000, after weeks of debate, the city council, with the mayor’s
support, approved a bill (PR13-295) that would restructure the District of Columbia
Board of Education pending approval of a referendum by District voters and a 35-day
congressional review period, during which a resolution of disapproval could be
offered to repeal the Act.3 The Act, which would amend the District’s Home Rule
Act, would:
!reduce the school board from 11 to nine members;
!allow voters to elect four members of the board from four new
school election districts (currently eight members of the board are
elected by ward);allow voters to elect one at-large member to serve
as President of the Board of Education; and
!allow the mayor to appoint four members to the board with the
advice and consent of the city council.
The Board of Elections and Ethics (BEE) held a public meeting on May 2, 2000,
to formulate the final short title and summary statement for the Proposed Charter
Amendment III, “The School Governance Charter Amendment Act of 2000.” Upon
completion of this exercise, the BEE certified the referendum question, which will ask
D.C. voters for a yes-or-no vote in support of a hybrid school board. The BEE has
estimated the costs of conducting the special election at approximately $371,000.
Because the voters approved the ballot question on June 27, 2000, the names of
candidates for the five elected seats on the new school board will appear on the
November 7, 2000, general election ballot.
During the campaign to win support for the charter amendment questions were
raised about the appropriateness of the mayor’s use of city employees, resources,
facilities, and funds. Critics charged that the mayor’s use of taxpayer funds and
government employees was a violation of the city’s campaign, election, and personnel
laws.. On June 16, 2000 the Office of Campaign Financed ruled in favor of the
complaint against the mayor and directed the mayor to immediately stop using District


3 On June 12, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4387, a bill that allows the School Governance
Charter Amendment to take effect immediately upon ratification by the voters of the District
of Columbia. On June 14, 2000, the Senate also approved H.R. 4387. The act, which was
signed by the President, effectively waives the 35-day congressional review period.

employees and resources in support of the charter amendment. On September 6,
2000, the Board of Elections and Ethics upheld the Office of Campaign Finance’s
order to stop using government employees, resources, and funds in the campaign. The
Mayor has announced he will appeal further, to the Court of Appeals.
Support for Charter Schools. The charter school movement in the District of
Columbia has been gaining support, despite some setbacks and controversy. Nearly
one in every 11 school children attending public schools in the District is enrolled in
one of 31 public charter schools. For its part, Congress provided additional support
for the charter school movement last year. Last year Congress amended the District
of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995, extending the legislative authority for
charter schools indefinitely and including charter schools as eligible entities for school4
construction and repair funds. The act provides $5 million in funds for public charter
schools. These funds are administered by a 5-member board appointed by the mayor
and the Public Charter School Board. This provision is intended to help charter
schools meet one of their most pressing needs–adequate physical facilities.
In March of this year, four members of the Emergency Transitional Education
Board of Trustees, the school advisory panel created by the authority, resigned in
protest of the authority’s support for the conversion of the Paul Junior High School
building to a charter school. The scheduled conversion was also opposed by the
superintendent of public schools who had sought to create a math and technology
program to be housed in the same building. The conversion of Paul to a charter
school was supported by two-thirds of the parents with children in attendance at Paul,
granted by the Public Charter School Board, which is one of two charter granting
authorities in the District,5 and subsequently endorsed by the authority.
The Paul Junior High School debate served as a lightning rod for issues
surrounding the conversion and transfer of public school buildings to charter schools.
On March 7, 2000, in the midst of the Paul Junior High School controversy, the city
council passed emergency legislation that places a seven-and-one-half month
moratorium on public school building conversions and transfers to public charter
schools. Though the bill does not affect the conversion of Paul, according to charter
school supporters, it would have a chilling effect on future conversions. In addition,
the authority has transferred the power to dispose of surplus schools to the office of
the mayor.
Special Education. Addressing the needs of special education students has been
a focus of House and Senate appropriators, and is one of several education-related
issues that District officials have promised to address. The District’s FY1999
Appropriations Act, P.L. 105-277, included $30 million in special federal payments
to address the backlog in evaluating the special education needs of students. The
FY2000 appropriations act for the District included a provision that would allow
District officials to increase the amount of compensation awarded to attorneys


4 Sections 153 and 155 of Title I of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000, P.L.

106-113, amended the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995, P.L. 104-134 (D.C.


Code, §31-2851)
5 The elected school board is the other public charter school granting entity.

representing students seeking special education services. The problems of the
District’s special education program have been well documented. They include issues
related to the timely evaluation of students and transportation issues. Despite
congressional scrutiny, the appointment by the courts of a special master for special
education, and promises from school officials to address these concerns, the school
system has shown little progress in addressing the educational needs of special
education students, who represent about 15% of total public school enrollment,
according to advocates representing special education students. Bus services for
students with special needs are routinely late or nonexistent. According to a report
by the special master appointed by a federal judge to help resolve transportation and
other special education issues, at least one in every 10 special education students
missed a significant part of morning classes during the first two months of the year
because of transportation problems.
In August 2000, the school system announced its latest efforts to address
problems surrounding the transportation of special education children. School
administrators plan to offer parents of special education students stipends ranging
from $3,000 to $7,500 to cover the cost of transporting kids to and from schools. In
exchange for the stipends parents would forfeit their child’s right for school bus
service.
On April 13, 1999, the city council passed PR 13-113, a resolution that
established, on an emergency basis, a special committee to investigate the delivery of
special education services. All members of the city council serve on the Special
Education Program Investigation Special Committee. The resolution gave the
committee one year to investigate the delivery of services and recommend
improvements. Earlier this year the council passed a resolution extending the deadline
for submission of the report by the special committee until September 2000. In April
1999, the superintendent of public schools placed three of the agency’s top special
education administrators on administrative leave. The superintendent also announced
administrative and programmatic changes as part of a 90-day action plan intended to
address some of the agency’s longstanding problems, including transferring the
responsibility for special education assessments to school principals.
Voting Rights Challenge
On April 19, 1999, a three-judge panel heard arguments for and against
providing voting representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate for
citizens of the District of Columbia. Two cases (Adams et al. v. Clinton et al., and
Alexander et al. v. Daley et al.) were consolidated and argued before a special panel
comprising Judges Louis F. Oberdorfer and Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United
States District Court, and Judge Merrick B. Garland of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs in the case were represented by
attorneys from the firm of Covington & Burling, and George S. LaRoche, Esq.
Provisions of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1999, prohibited the
District government from using city funds and resources in filing the court challenge.
Presently, the District of Columbia elects a non-voting delegate to Congress,
who has been granted the right to cast committee votes, but cannot vote in either the
Committee of the Whole or the House. The plaintiffs’ arguments for granting full-



congressional voting representation—a single House vote and two Senate votes—rest
on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Lawyers for the plaintiffs
contend because the apportionment process deprives District residents of a republican
form of government because it leaves them unrepresented in the national legislative
body. This, the plaintiffs have argued, denies them equal protection under the law,
because although they are subject to laws passed by Congress, they lack voting
representation therein.
The Justice Department argued that the 14th Amendment provision governing
equal protection does not apply and that the Constitution grants voting representation
in the House and the Senate only to states. Specifically, Article I, Section 2,
paragraph 1 states that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States....” Article I, Section
3, paragraph 1 states that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State ....” In addition, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution
grants to Congress the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases
whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by cession
of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the
Government of the United States ....” Further, Article IV, Section 3 grants only to
Congress the power to admit new states into the union.
The three judge panel, whose ruling was later appealed directly to the Supreme
Court, handed down their decision on March 20, 2000. By a decision of two to one,
the panel founded that District residents did not have a legal right to voting
representation in Congress. The panel acknowledged the apparent inequity and
paradox that residents of the nation’s capital do not possess the right to voting
representation in the House and Senate as do residents of the 50 states, but the
majority opinion stated that the Constitution clearly states that voting representation
in the House and Senate is reserved for “the People of the several States.” The
majority opinion suggested that residents seek redress through the political process
and not the courts. Political remedies could include a statehood constitutional
amendment, creation of a federal enclave and return of the remaining portion of the
District to Maryland, or allowing District residents to vote with Marylanders in Senate
and House elections. On October 16, 2000, the Supreme Court affirmed the March

20, 2000, ruling of the three judge panel.


Receiverships
The courts continue to play a significant role in the daily operations of the
District government. According to the District’s proposed budget for FY2001, 7%
of proposed total general fund expenditures ($4.8 billion) will be controlled by court-
appointed receivers. Three agencies (the Child and Family Services, Mental Health
Services, and District Columbia Jail Medical Services) account for at least $394.6
million in proposed spending controlled by court order. The budget did not include
cost estimates for one other agency controlled by a court-appointed receiver: the
District of Columbia Public Housing Authority.
In December 1999, Mayor Williams appointed Grace M. Lopes as his
administration’s liaison with the four agencies under receivership. Her primary
mission is to help fashion solutions that will lead to the return of these agencies to



District administrative control. However, the effectiveness of the agencies under
receivership and their progress toward return of the four agencies to District
government control has been uneven, at best. City officials are hopeful that the
agencies will be returned to District control within a year. The Housing Authority
was returned to District control by September 2000. There is little to indicate that
two other agencies–Child and Family Services and Mental Health Services–have made
substantial progress in addressing the problems and issues that forced the agencies
into receivership. The agencies’ problems were highlighted by news reports of the
deaths of children and retarded adults in their care. On October 23, 2000, a United
States District Judge Thomas Hogan approved a plan that would return control of the
Child and Family Services agency to the District government by the summer of 2001,
and elevate the agency to a cabinet level agency. Mental Health Services is set to
return to District control by April 2001. The fourth agency, Jail Medical Services,
will be returned by the end of the year through the efforts of the mayor.
During the interim, city officials are seeking greater budget coordination with
court-appointed receivers. Presently, city officials, including the authority, lack the
power to review, revise, or alter the budget request of an agency under receivership.
The agency’s budget request for each fiscal year is simply included in the District’s
proposed budget, and is subject only to court review.
As part of the mayor’s strategy to hasten the return of agencies under
receivership, and to enhance financial accountability and management of District
funds, the congressional delegate for the District of Columbia introduced the District
of Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000, H.R. 3995, on March 5,

2000.


The act would require each court-appointed receiver to:
!consult with the mayor and CFO when preparing the agency’s annual
budget;
!prepare and submit to the Mayor, for inclusion in the District’s
annual budget, the agency’s proposed or estimated budget;
!follow the applicable procurement policies and practices of the Chief
Procurement Officer of the District;
!submit to annual financial and management audits conducted by the
Inspector General of the District; and
!ensure that the costs incurred in the administration of each agency
are consistent with applicable regional and national standards (unless
waived by the court during an interim period of up to two years).
Housing Authority. The Housing Authority, which has been in receivership
since 1995, could be returned to city control sometime this year. Earlier this year
District public housing residents elected three tenants to a nine-member board of
commissioners charged with setting policy and approving major contracts for the



agency after the court-appointed receiver, David Gilmore, completed his assignment
as receiver during September 2000.
Child and Family Services. In the case of Child and Family Services, the city
agency charged with protecting abused and neglected children, critics of the receiver
point to the case of Brianna Blackmon, a 23-month old child who died in January
after being returned to her mother. The mother had been charged and found guilty
of child neglect a year earlier. The child’s death prompted a congressional hearing
and recommendations that included additional training for social workers and
requiring social workers to provide field reports to judges 10 days before hearings on
a child’s status. In the wake of the Brianna Blackmon case, the court-appointed
receiver asked the city for $60 million in additional funds. This would increase the
agency’s budget to $184 million, and would be used to provide higher payments to
foster parents, hire additional social workers, and implement other initiatives
necessary to fully comply with the court order to improve the agency’s services.
On October 23, 2000, the District Court Judge Thomas Hogan approved a plan
that would return the agency to District control by the summer of 2001. The
agreement returning control of the agency to the District requires the District to
elevate the agency to a cabinet level agency with the administrator reporting directly
to the mayor, develop licensing standards for foster and group homes, and enact
legislation that gives the agency responsibility for investigating abuse and neglect
cases. Currently, neglect allegations are investigated by the agency while abuse cases
are investigated by the police.
Mental Health Services. On March 6, 2000, U.S. District Judge Thomas F.
Hogan approved a plan to return the agency to District control. The judge found that
since being placed in receivership in 1997, the system had deteriorated. The plan
agreed to by District officials and a coalition representing mental health groups,
removed the court-appointed receiver at the end of March 2000, placed the agency
under control of an interim receiver, and will transfer control to the District by April
2001. The court will appoint a monitor to review the District’s administration of
mental health services during the first six-month period following the District
takeover.
The state of mental health services in the District was illustrated on February 29,
2000, when police and firefighters were called to a Northwest Washington mental
health group home and found the doors chained shut. The home is part of an
unofficial network of unregulated group homes for the mentally ill. Advocates for the
mentally ill assert that many of them are firetraps. Mental health officials noted that
once patients are considered eligible for independent living mental health case workers
are no longer responsible for their housing. Although, no formal lists of the
unregulated homes exist, it is estimated that there are approximately 200 such homes
in the District. During an October 28, 1999 hearing before Judge Aubrey Robinson,
mental health advocates noted cases of fraud, neglect, and abuse by mental health
residential facilities operators.
More recently, during late May and early June 2000, the mayor and his staff
testified before a council committee investigating the city’s troubled history in the
administration of services for the mentally retarded. The Deputy Mayor for Children



Youth, and Families acknowledged in press reports that there had been 24 deaths of
group home residents with mental retardation and developmental disabilities in 1999,
and a total of 159 such deaths since 1993.
During his June 1, 2000, testimony before the city council committee, the mayor
pledged to make improvements in the city’s health services for mentally retarded
adults. Some of the steps the city will take include reporting all deaths in group
homes for the mentally retarded to the medical examiner for autopsy, the formation
of a committee to review all deaths in group homes, and hiring of an outside
contractor to determine the medical status of retarded group home residents. In
addition, the mayor plans to develop legislation that would create a commission
charged with reviewing and restructuring the system of services for mentally retarded
group home residents.
In March 2000, the head of Psychological Development Associates, Inc. a
private firm providing therapeutic services to the mentally retarded, was convicted in
United States District Court of defrauding the city of $1.6 million in Medicaid funds
for services that were never rendered. In May 2000, a former head of the day
program branch of the District’s Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities
Administration, was convicted of federal conspiracy and conflict-of-interest charges
linked to Psychological Development Associates, Inc.
District Columbia Jail Medical Services. The cost of health services is one
of the issues prompting city officials to seek removal of the receiver for medical
services at the District of Columbia jail. The jail’s medical services, which have been
under receivership since 1995, carry an excessively high price tag, according to the
city’s congressional delegate. The delegate, on March 7, 2000, cited statistics from
the National Institute of Corrections, and noted that the District per-inmate per-day
medical cost of $19 is far higher than the city of Baltimore’s $5.18 per-inmate per-day
medical cost. She also noted that the cost of medical services for District inmates is
almost three times the national average.
Criminal Justice
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33),6 initiated several changes in
the operation of the District’s corrections and criminal justice system, including the
closing of the Lorton Correctional Facility by the end of 2001. The most recent
activity involves the transfer of D.C. felons into the federal prison system and
privately-run prisons, and public review of the recommendations of the D.C.
Sentencing Commission. In addition, the role of the U.S. Parole Commission and its
responsibility for parole decisions affecting D.C. offenders is also an issue of current
concern.
Lorton Inmate Transfers. As of April 6, 2000, approximately 2,300 District
of Columbia felons have been transferred into the custody of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (FBOP). At a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on March 2, 2000,
and a Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight hearing on April 6, 2000,


6 P.L. 105-33, Title XI, Subtitle C, Corrections.

the Director of FBOP testified that overcrowded conditions in the federal prison
system, and the change in closure date for Lorton from the year 2003 to 2001,
complicates the FBOP’s ability to transfer D.C. felons into the federal prison system.
She added that every effort will be made to meet Lorton facility closure deadline of
December 31, 2001. In addition, the transfer of D.C. felons to privately operated
facilities has been delayed due to environmental and legal challenges. In an effort to
ensure the scheduled closure of Lorton, the FBOP negotiated a contract with the state
of Virginia to house 900 D.C. felons.
Advisory Commission on Sentencing. The National Capital Revitalization and
Self Government Improvement Act of 1997, Title XI of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (P.L. 105-33), mandated the restructuring of the city’s sentencing system to
comply with federal truth-in-sentencing guidelines. The 1997 act eliminated parole
and indeterminate sentencing of convicted felons. The act required the District to
develop a set of determinate sentences, and requires felons convicted of such crimes
to serve 85% of the term for such convictions behind bars. Felons convicted of
subsection (h) felonies such as murder and rape are also required to serve “an
adequate period” of supervised release. In 1998, the city council created the Advisory
Commission on Sentencing and directed the 13-member commission to make
recommendations regarding criminal sentencing reform mandated by the 1997
Revitalization Act. The commission submitted its latest recommendations to the city
council on April 5, 2000. The new rules took effect August 5, 2000. The
commission’s eight page report recommends:
!establishing a unitary sentencing system by abolishing parole for all
offenders (the Revitalization Act of 1997 abolished parole for
subsection (h) offenders who commit serious crimes such as murder
and rape);
!training for judges and other parties regarding the switch from
indeterminate sentences, where felons are sentenced to serve time
within a range of years–for example, 10 to 15 years for rape–to
determinate sentencing, where convicted felons serve a set term of
years–for example, seven years for rape–thus, making sentencing and
time served more predictable;
!allowing the courts to impose a five-year supervised release period
for offenses that carry a statutory maximum sentence of 25 years or
more, a three year supervised release period for offenses that carry
a statutory maximum sentence of less than 25 years;
!allowing the courts to impose a supervised release period greater
than five years for certain sex offenses; and
!establishing a maximum sentence of 60 years for first degree murder,
40 years for second-degree murder, and 30 years for all other
offenses that previously carried a maximum penalty of life
imprisonment.



Several public hearings have been conducted to increase public awareness of the
new sentencing provisions and recommendations of the Commission. The council has
set June 26, 2000 as the target date for voting on the sentencing guidelines included
in council bill PR13-696, the District of Columbia Sentencing Reform Act of 2000.
Parole. The transfer of D.C. offenders to the federal system also includes
changes in parole authority. The U.S. Parole Commission has assume responsibility
for making parole release decisions for D.C. felons since August 5, 1998. The D.C.
Board of Parole, however has the authority to supervise and revoke parole of D.C.
parolees until August 5, 2000. Subsequent to this date, the D.C. Board of Parole has
been abolished and the U.S. Parole Commission has jurisdiction over all D.C.
offenders. The Advisory Commission on Sentencing (ACS) included several
recommendations intended to address issues surrounding the revocation of supervised
release and parole. The Commission recommended that the city council enact
legislation setting the maximum terms of imprisonment for revocation of supervised
release consistent with federal standards under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) and 18 U.S.C.

3559.


Budget Request
No Supplemental Appropriations for FY2000
No additional funding for the District of Columbia was requested by the Clinton
Administration or the authority, and none was included in the House version of H.R.

3908, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2000.


FY2001: The President’s Budget Request
On February 7, 2000, the Clinton Administration released its FY2000 budget
recommendations. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $445.5 million in
federal payments to the District of Columbia. An overwhelming percentage of the
President’s proposed federal payments and assistance to the District involve the
courts and criminal justice system. This includes $103.5 million for the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, an
independent federal agency which has assumed management responsibility for the
District’s pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions. In
addition, the Administration is requesting $103 million in support of court operations,
and $134 million for the trustee appointed to oversee the District corrections systems,
including the closing of the Lorton correctional facility and the transfer of its inmates
into the federal prison system. These four functions (prison administration, court
operations, defender services, and offender supervision) represent 84% of $445.4
million of the President’s proposed federal payments to the District of Columbia (See
Table 2).
FY2001: District’s Budget Request
On June 7, 2000, the Authority approved a $5.5 billion budget for FY2001. The
budget proposal includes a $150 million reserve fund mandated by the District of



Columbia Appropriations Act of 1999, P.L. 105-277. In addition, the budget would
increase funding for public education by $131 million, for economic development by
$24 million, and for general government support by $135 million. The budget must
be approved by Congress (See Table 2).
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special Federal Payment
Funds: Proposed and Final FY2001 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
FY2001
Enacted City’s
Programs FY2000 Admin. budget House Senate Final
Federal Payments: General and Special Fund
Resident Tuition Program17.017.017.014.017.017.0
CFO — — — 1.5 0.0 1.25
mentoring program——–-[0.25]– [0.25]
Youth development ——–-[0.5]– [0.25]
Hickey Run——–-[0.5]–[0.5]
stormwater
basic values training–––––[0.25]
Homeless assistance——–-[0.25]– 0.0
Commercial Revitalization0.00.00.00.01.51.5
Program
Public School anti-0.00.00.00.00.50.5
violence programs
anti-violence – – – – [0.25] [0.25]
reading programs––––[0.25][0.25]
Metro. Police mentoring of–––––0.1
high risk youth
Covenant House––––0.50.5
Corrections Trustee for176.0134.3134.3134.3134.2134.2
Operations
case processing ——–-[1.0][1.0][1.0]
District of Columbia99.7103.0103.099.5109.1105.0
Courts Operation
Court operations99.7103.0103.099.5109.1105.0
Court of Appeals[7.2][7.7][7.7][7.7][7.7][7.4]



FY2001
Enacted City’s
Programs FY2000 Admin. budget House Senate Final
Superior Court[68.3][72.4][72.4][72.4][72.4][71.1]
Court system[16.1][17.9][17.9][16.9][17.9][17.9]
Child Abusea0.00.00.00.00.00.0
and Neglect
Indigent b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
representation
Capital [8.0] [5.0] [5.0] [2.5] [5.8] [3.3]
Improvements
Pay raise (8.48%)0.00.00.00.0[5.3][5.3]
Defender Services in D.C.33.338.438.434.438.434.4
Courts c
Court Services and
Offender Supervision93.8103.5103.5115.8112.5112.5
Agency for the District of
Columbia
Community— —–-[69.9][67.5][67.5]
Supervision and Sex
Offender
Registration
Parole Revocation,
Adult Probation and[58.6][61.5][61.5]–––
Offender Supervision
Drug testing[20.5]––[22.2]––
and screening
Public Defender[17.4][18.5][18.5][18.8][18.5][18.8]
Service
Pretrial Service[17.8][23.5][23.5][27.1][26.2][26.2]
Agency
Incentives for the5.05.05.00.0{5.0}e
Adoption of Foster
Children
Metro. Police Open-Air
drug market elimination1.00.00.00.00.00.0
initiative
Washington Interfaith–––1.00.01.0


Network

FY2001
Enacted City’s
Programs FY2000 Admin. budget House Senate Final
Tax Reform study–––0.10.0
Simplified Personnel–––0.250.00.25
System
Management Reform—––0.00.0–
Metro improvements—25.025.07.0d25.025.0
Boys Town operations—0.00.00.00.0–
Infrastructure Fund—0.00.00.00.0–
Poplar Point Brownfield——10.00.03.43.45
Remediation
environ. assessment––––[2.15][2.15]
Anacostia Park––––[1.30][1.30]
entrance
Lorton study—––0.00.0–
Presidential inauguration—6.26.25.966.215.96
Citizen compliant review0.50.00.00.00.0–
office
Firefighters pay raise—0.00.00.00.0–
Waterfront park—0.00.00.00.0–
improvements
City and national—3.03.00.250.00.0
museums
Southwest waterfront—––0.00.0–
improvements study
Public charter schools—0.00.00.00.0–
St. Coletta expansion–––––1.0
Child Advocacy Center–––––0.5
Children’s National2.50.00.00.00.00.5
Medical Center
Special Olympics–––––0.25



FY2001
Enacted City’s
Programs FY2000 Admin. budget House Senate Final
Enforcement of law
banning tobacco
possession by minors–-–––0.1
U.S. Park police helicopter— ––0.00.0–
operations
Mentor services0.250.00.00.00.0–
Medicare coordinated care—0.00.00.00.0–
demonstration
Mental Health—–0.00.00.0–
School Construction —–0.00.00.0–
Special Education —0.00.00.00.0–
Revitalization Corp.—0.00.00.00.0–
Y2K Information—0.00.00.00.0–
technology
Infrastructure &—[38.0]0.00.00.0–
economic development
projects
Lorton Environmental6.70.00.00.00.0–
Cleanup
Total federal payments$435.8$445.4$445.4$414.0$448.35$444.975
a Funds would be provided under a separate heading–Defender Services for the District of Columbia
Courts. The Committee’s recommendation is based on the Court’s misuse of funds appropriated for
such activities in previous years.b
Funds would be provided under a separate heading–Defender Services for the District of Columbia
Courts. The Committee’s recommendation is based on the Court’s misuse of funds appropriated
for such activities in previous years.c
In previous years funds would be provided as part of District of Columbia Court operations. The
Committee recommends creation of a separate appropriations to ensure payment of attorneys
representing indigent persons, guardianship, and abused and neglected children in court proceedings.d
An additional $18 million would be transferred from interest bearing accounts held by the
Authority on behalf of the District government.
Note: Brackets indicate amount subsumed under line immediately above. Total may be off due to
rounding. e
The $5 million made available for FY2001 is a carryover of unobligated funds appropriated in
FY2000. This amount is not included in total special federal payments for FY2001.
Note: Total may not add due to rounding.
General Provisions for FY2001. Unlike previous years, the Administration’s
budget for FY2001 does not include general provisions. The Administration and city



leaders had hoped to eliminate a number of provisions included in last year’s
appropriations act that they consider arcane, irrelevant, or inappropriate.
Congressional Action on the Budget
Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the district to fund ceratin
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 passed by the House and the Senate. After this final action by the House and
he Senate, the District’s budget is forwarded to the President who can sign it into law
or veto it.
FY2001 302(b) Suballocation
Section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act requires that the House and
Senate pass a concurrent budget resolution establishing 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 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays among
the 13 appropriation subcommittees.
On May 4, 2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a 302(b)
suballocation for the District of $441 million. This is $4 million less than the $445
million requested by the Administration for FY2001. The House Appropriations
Committee approved 302(b) suballocation of $414 million in budget authority for
FY2001 for the District of Columbia.
FY2001: House Bill, H.R. 4942
House Appropriations Committee. On July 25, 2000, the House
Appropriations Committee reported an original measure, H.R. 4942, appropriating
funds for the District of Columbia for FY2001 (H.Rept. 106-786).
Federal Funds. The Appropriations Committee bill includes $414 million in
special federal assistance. The majority of these funds ($384 million) would be
allocated to courts, prisons, and criminal justice activities including offender services.
In addition, the bill appropriates $14 million for college scholarship program, and $7
million for construction of a New York Avenue Metro station. The bill directs an
additional $18 million in funds held by the Authority to complete the $25 million
federal contribution for construction of the New York Avenue station.
Local Funds. The District’s budget as approved by the House Appropriations
Committee includes $4.842 billion in general fund operating expenses and $654
million in enterprise funding for a total of $5.496 billion in total operating expenses
for FY2001. The budget eliminates a proposed $3.360 million increase in funding for
the Authority for FY2001. The increase was proposed to cover the cost of severance



pay for the agency’s staff. The proposed severance packages were criticized as
excessive by the House Appropriation’s Committee in its report (H.Rept. 106-786)
accompanying H.R. 4942. The report notes that the Authority proposed budget of
$6.5 million was more than double that of its FY2000 appropriation of $3.140 million,
at a time when the Authority is preparing to be phrased out of existence in
anticipation of the District meeting the congressionally mandated requirement of four
consecutive years of balanced budgets before the restoration of home rule.
General Provisions. The bill includes several social rider provisions that are
viewed as controversial or intrusive by some District officials and residents. The
House bill includes a provision barring the federal funding of needle exchange
programs aimed at reducing the spread of AIDS and HIV among drug users. The
Committee approved by voice vote an amendment that would allow city and private
funds to be used to finance a needle exchange program. The amendment would
prohibit the use of federal funds for a needle exchange program. The Committee
rejected an amendment that would have restricted the distribution of hypodermic
needles. The provision would have prohibited the distribution needles within 1,000
feet of a public or private day care center, school or university, public swimming
pool, park, playground, video arcade, youth center, or near any event sponsored by
these facilities.
The Committee also included a provision in the appropriations bill that would
allow the District to implement a provision in a proposed Health Insurance Coverage
for Contraceptive Act of 2000. The proposed legislation would require employers
with employee health plans to pay for contraceptive services if they have a
prescription drug plan, even if the employers may object to the use of contraceptives
on religious or moral grounds. The chairman of the House District of Columbia
Appropriations Subcommittee included a provision in the subcommittee draft of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2001 that would have prohibited the
contraceptive provision from taking effect. During the Appropriations Committee
markup on July 20, 2000, the committee approved, by voice vote, an amendment that
would allow the contraceptive parity provision to stand conditioned on the city
council drafting a “conscience clause” that would allow employers to opt out of the
requirement based on religious or moral objections.
House Floor Action. On September 14, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4942, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2001 by a vote of 217 (yeas) to 207
(nays). On July 26, 2000, the House considered H.R. 4942, the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2001. The House, by voice vote, approved an amendment
introduced by Representative Istook, that would transfer $100,000 for a study of the
District’s tax structure to help finance construction of a New York Avenue Metrorail
station. The total federal contribution for construction of a New York Avenue
Metrorail station would be $25 million including $7.1 million in direct federal
contribution and $17.9 million in transferred funds from interest bearing accounts
control by the Authority. In addition, several other amendments were offered during
House consideration of H.R. 4942, including amendments that would:
!prohibit the public funding of needle exchange programs;



!prevent the exchange of needles within 1000 feet of certain public
places that serve as gathering places for children such as schools,
playgrounds, and day care centers; and
!provide for penalties for persons under the age of 18 years who are
found in possession of tobacco products.
During the July 26, 2000 floor debate on H.R. 4942, an amendment was
introduced by Delegate Norton (D-D.C.) that would have eliminated a provision
(Section 168(a))of the bill that would prohibit the District from implementing the
Health Insurance Coverage for Contraceptive Act of 2000. The amendment was
rendered moot after Mayor Williams vetoed the legislation.
Senate Bill S. 3041/H.R. 4942
Senate Appropriations Committee. On September 13, 2000, the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported S. 3041, a bill appropriating funds for the District
of Columbia for FY2001 (S.Rept. 106-409).
Federal Funds. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill includes $445
million in special federal assistance. The majority of these funds ($390.2 million)
would be allocated to courts, prisons, and criminal justice activities including offender
services. In addition, the bill appropriates $17 million for college scholarship program,
and $25 million for construction of a New York Avenue Metro station. This is the
full federal commitment to the project, which is expected to receive an additional $50
million from the city and the private sector.
Local Funds. The District’s budget as approved by the Senate Appropriations
Committee includes $4.680 billion in general fund operating expenses and $654
million in enterprise funding for a total of $5.334 billion in total operating expenses
for FY2001. The budget supports a proposed $3.360 million increase in funding for
the Authority for FY2001. The increase was proposed to cover the cost of severance
pay for the agency’s staff. The Authority is preparing to be phrased out of existence
in anticipation of the District meeting the congressionally mandated requirement of
four consecutive years of balanced budgets before the restoration of home rule.
General Provisions. The bill includes several social rider provisions that are
viewed as controversial or intrusive by some District officials and residents including
a provision barring the federal and city funding of needle exchange programs aimed
at reducing the spread of AIDS and HIV among drug users. The Committee bill
would allow private funds to be used to finance a needle exchange program. The
Senate Appropriations Committee also includes a provision that would prohibit
legalizing the medical use of marijuana and restricting the use of federal and city
funds for abortions to cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or
threatens the health of the would-be mother.
The bill requires the Chief Financial Officer to submit a comprehensive financial
management policy comprising cash, debt, financial asset, emergency and contingency
reserve management, and real property tax exemption policies. In addition, it
identifies the process for review and approval of these policies. The bill would also
amend the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act relating to the



hiring and dismissal of the CFO. The Senate bill proposes a 30-day congressional
review period following the mayor, city council’s, and Authority’s approval of the
appointment or dismissal of the CFO. In addition, the bill identifies 24 specific duties
and responsibilities of the CFO. Earlier this year CFO Valarie Holt was dismissed,
in part, because of criticism of the office’s tardiness in delivering financial reports
critical to the development of this year’s budget plan.
The Senate bill would eliminate or slowly phase out over several years the
requirement that the city maintain a $150 million reserve fund. Instead, the Senate bill
would require that the city create two reserve funds: a contingency reserve fund; and
an emergency reserve fund. The contingency cash reserve fund would set aside up
to 3% of each year’s operating budget for unforseen or nonrecurring needs such as
natural disasters, federal mandates, and revenue shortfalls. The second reserve fund,
the emergency cash reserve fund, would require the city to maintain a 4% reserve of
each year’s operating budget for unanticipated and nonrecurring needs such as a
natural disaster or calamity. In order to reach the 4% set-aside requirement for the
emergency cash reserve, the District would be required to deposit at least 0.5% of
each fiscal year’s operating budget ending in FY2008. The District also would be
required to deposit at least 0.5% of each year’s operating budget in order to meet the

3% contingency fund requirement by FY2006.


Senate Floor Action. On September 27, 2000, the Senate passed its version of
H.R. 4942, substituting the language of S. 3041, a bill appropriating funds for the
District of Columbia for FY2001 (S.Rept. 106-409). The bill was approved by the
full Senate by unanimous consent.
Conference and Final Action: H.R. 4942 and H.R. 5633
On October 11, 2000 House and Senate conferees reached agreement on a
conference version of H.R. 4942. On October 26, 2000, the conference committee
on H.R. 4942, release the conference report (H.Rept. 106-1005) accompanying the
bill. The conference version of H.R. 4942 included appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State. The move was intended to expedite
the consideration of appropriations for these departments. On October 26, 2000, the
House approved H.R. 4942 despite the threat of a veto. On October 27, 2000, the
Senate approved the conference bill by a vote of 48 to 43. In a October 26, 2000,
letter to the House Speaker and Majority Leader of the Senate, the President
indicated that he would veto an otherwise acceptable District Appropriations Act
because of the inclusion of objectionable provisions in the Commerce, Justice, and
State portion of the bill.
Upon returning from an election recess, Congress considered and passed H.R.
5633, an act appropriating funds for the District of Columbia for FY2001. The bill
did not include provisions appropriating funds for the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State that resulted in the threatened veto by President Clinton. The
House and the Senate quickly passed H.R. 5633 by unanimous consent on November
14, 2000, leaving unchanged the District of Columbia appropriations provisions first
approved in the conference report accompanying H.R. 4942. President Clinton signed
H.R. 5633 into law on November 22, 2000, as P.L. 106-522.



Federal Funds. P.L. 106-522 includes $444.975 billion in special federal
payments to the District of Columbia. The majority of these funds ($386 million)
would be allocated to corrections and criminal justice activities. The bill also includes
$17 million for a college tuition assistance program, $25 million for New York
Avenue Metro station. The act also includes $100,000 for enforcement of law
banning possession of tobacco products by minors.
Local Funds. P.L. 105-522 includes $5.5 billion in general and enterprise fund
expenditures for FY2001. This is $142 million more than the District budgeted in
FY2000. The conference bill, which was vetoed, included $998.9 million budget for
public education including charter schools. This is a $132 million increase in funding
for public education, the largest increase in the District’s budget. Other increases
include $15 million for economic development and regulatory activities, and $8
million for public works. These and other increases were balanced against cuts in
other government activities including $14 million less for public safety activities and
$85 million less in repayment of loans and interest, and $7.9 million reduction in the
payment of interest on short term borrowing.
General Provisions. P.L. 106-522, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act
for FY2001, also includes several social rider provisions that are viewed as
controversial or intrusive by some District officials and residents. Many of these
provisions were included in previous District of Columbia appropriation acts. P.L.
106-522 bars the use or District and federal funds for needle exchange programs
aimed at reducing the spread of AIDS and HIV among drug users, a provision that
was included in the FY2000 appropriations for the city. The new public law,
consistent with FY2000 appropriations language would allow private funds to be
used to finance a needle exchange program. The act includes a provision that restricts
the distribution of hypodermic needles. This new provision prohibits the distribution
of needles within 1,000 feet of a public or private day care center, school or
university, public swimming pool, park, playground, video arcade, youth center, or
near any event sponsored by these facilities.
P.L. 106-522, also includes a provision that allows the District to pass and
implement laws requiring the inclusion of health insurance coverage for contraceptive
prescriptions. The legislation also includes a provision that would allow the
contraceptive parity provision to stand so long such legislation included a “conscience
clause” that would allow employers to opt out of the requirement based on religious
or moral objections. The act also include provisions prohibiting the decriminalization
of marijuana for medical purposes, the use of funds for lobbying for statehood or
voting representation in Congress, and the use of District and federal funds for
abortion services except when the life of the mother is in danger or the pregnancy is
the result of rape or incest. These provisions were included in previous acts
appropriating funds for the District of Columbia. The act also includes a new
provision that would phase out over several years the requirement that the city
maintain a $150 million reserve fund. Instead, the act includes a provision contained
in the Senate version of H.R. 4942 requiring the city to establish two reserve funds:
a contingency reserve fund; and an emergency reserve fund. The contingency cash
reserve fund would set aside up to 3% of each year’s operating budget for unforseen
or nonrecurring needs such as natural disasters, federal mandates, and revenue
shortfalls. The second reserve fund, the emergency cash reserve fund, requires the city



to maintain a 4% reserve of each year’s operating budget for unanticipated and
nonrecurring needs. In order to reach the 4% set-aside requirement for the
emergency cash reserve, the District would be required to deposit at least 0.5% of
each fiscal year’s operating budget ending in FY2008. The District also would be
required to deposit at least 0.5% of each year’s operating budget in order to meet the

3% contingency fund requirement by FY2006.



Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds: Proposed and Final
Appropriations for FY2001
(in millions of dollars)
FY2001
Enacted
ProgramsFY2000District HouseSen.P.L. 106-522
Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds
GENERAL FUND
Governmental direction and support167.356197.771194.521194.271195.771
Economic development and regulation190.335205.638205.638205.638205.638
Public safety and justice778.770762.346762.346762.346762.546
Public education system867.411998.418995.418998.918998.918
Human support services1,536.3611,542.2041,532.2041,532.7041,535.654
Public works271.395278.242278.242278.242278.242
Receivership programs342.077394.528389.528389.528389.528
Workforce investments8.5000.0000.0000.000
Reserve Fund150.000150.000150.000$150.000 b$150.000b
DC Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority3.1406.5003.1406.5003.140
Repayment of Loans and Interest328.417246.089243.238243.238243.238
Repayment Gen. Fund Recovery38.28639.30039.30039.30039.300
Debt
Pay interest on short term9.0004.5001.1401.1401.140
borrowing
Presidential Inauguration——5.9616.2115.961
One Judiciary Square Certificate of
Participation 7.950 7.950 7.950 7.950 7.950
Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund–-61.40661.40661.40661.406
Transfer
Optical and dental insurance1.2952.6752.6752.6752.675
payments
Productivity Savings{20.000}a0.0000.0000.0000.000
Wilson Building—8.4098.4098.4098.409
Procurement and management{21.457}a{37.000}a{37.000}{37.000}{37.000}
savings
Human Resource Development0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000



FY2001
Enacted
ProgramsFY2000District HouseSen.P.L. 106-522
Operational Improvement savings0.000{10.000}a{10.000}{10.000}{10.000}
Management supervisory services0.00013.20013.20013.20013.200
Cafeteria Plan—{5.000}{5.000}{5.000}{5.000}
Productivity bank20.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
Risk management0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
General fund total operating
expenses $4,686.836$4,867.176$4,842.416$4,680.265$4,684.915
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water and Sewer Authority279.608275.705275.705275.705275.705
Lottery and charitable Games234.400223.200223.200223.200223.200
DC Sports Commission10.84610.96810.96810.96810.968
DC Public Benefit Corp. 89.00878.23578.23578.23578.235
DC Retirement Board9.89211.41411.41411.41411.414
Correctional Industries Fund1.8101.8081.8081.8081.808
Convention Center Enterprise Fund50.22652.72652.72652.72652.726
Cable Television0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
Public Service Commission0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
Office of the People’s Counsel0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
Dept. of Insurance and Security0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
Regulation
Office of Banking and Fin.0.0000.0000.0000.0000.000
Regulation
Total enterprise funds675.790654.056654.056654.056654.056
Total operating expenses$5, 362.626$5,521.232$5,496.372$5,503.732$5,504.772
CAPITAL OUTLAY
General Fund1,218.6371,029.9751,022.0741,022.0741,022.074
Water and sewer fund197.169 140.725140.725140.725140.725
Total District of Columbia Funds
$6,778.416 $6,691.932 $6,659.171 $6,666.531 6,667.571
a Brackets indicate projected saving to be achieved and not actual expenditure.



b Conference and Senate versions of the bill would establish two reserve funds: a “contingency
reserve fund” into which the Mayor may deposit at least 3% of the total fiscal year operating budget;
and a “emergency cash reserve fund” into which the Mayor may deposit at least 4% of the total fiscal
year operating budget. These reserve funds would be established over a multi-year period and would
replace the present reserve fund of $150 million.