APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY2000: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2000:
District of Columbia
Updated December 23, 1999
Eugene Boyd, Coordinator
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 passes each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on the District of Columbia. 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 FY2000: District of Columbia
Summary
On November 29, 1999, President Clinton signed the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY2000, formerly H.R. 3194, into law as P.L. 106-113. The
Act appropriates funds for the District of Columbia, Division A of the act, and four
other appropriation measures, Division B of the act, including: Commerce, Justice,
State, Judiciary; Foreign Operation Appropriations; Interior Appropriations; and
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations for FY2000.
Division B of P.L. 106-113, also includes a section governing Miscellaneous
Appropriations, and provisions amending the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, State
Department authorization, milk supports, and intellectual properties. As originally
forwarded to the conference committee, H.R. 3194 provided appropriations for
FY2000 solely for the District of Columbia. The House approved the conference
measure on November 18, 1999, and the Senate approved the measure on November
Division A of P.L. 106-113 is the third District of Columbia Appropriations Act
for FY2000 considered by Congress. The Act includes $436 million in special federal
payments to the District of Columbia. This is slightly higher than the amount included
in the vetoed version of H.R. 3064 ($429 million) and H.R. 2587 ($430 million). The
difference is $6.7 million in federal funds for the environmental cleanup of the Lorton
Correctional Facility.
On November 3, 1999, President Clinton vetoed H.R. 3064, which included
funds for the District of Columbia and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education for FY2000. On September 28, 1999, the President vetoed
H.R. 2587, Congress’ first attempt to appropriate funds for the District of Columbia
for FY2000. District officials urged the President to veto H.R. 2587, because of the
inclusion of several so called “social rider” provisions. They characterized the
provisions as assaults on the city’s limited home rule. P.L. 106-113 includes many of
the social riders contained in H.R. 2587 and H.R. 3064. The Act includes provisions
that prohibit:
!the use of federal or local funds to establish and maintain a needle exchange
program, but would allow the private financing of needle exchange programs;
!the District from decriminalizing the use of marijuana and implementing
Initiative 59 governing medical marijuana;
!the use of federal or District funds to finance a court challenge aimed at
securing congressional voting representation in the House and Senate for
District residents, but would allow the city’s corporation counsel to review
and comment on private lawsuits filed on behalf of citizens of the District of
Columbia;
!the use of federal or District funds for abortions except in cases or rape, incest,
or the mother’s health is endangered; and
!the implementation of a domestic partners act passed in 1992 that would
extend health, employment, and other benefits and protections to unmarried,
cohabiting, heterosexual or homosexual couples.
Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRS DivisionTelephone
DC EducationCarol GloverDSP7-7353
DC CorrectionsJoAnne O’BryantDSP7-6819
DC Courts Steve RutkusG&F7-7162
DC-Federal Fiscal
Relations Nonna A. NotoG&F7-7826
DC Politics and
GovernanceEugene BoydG&F7-8689
DSP= Domestic Social Policy Division, G&F=Government and Finance Division
Contents
Most Recent Developments........................................1
Background .................................................... 2
District of Columbia Financial Condition..........................2
Changes in District Leadership..................................3
Management Reform.........................................3
District of Columbia City Council Reform.........................4
Public Education............................................5
Receiverships ............................................... 6
Budget Request.................................................7
No Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999......................7
FY2000: The President’s Budget Request.........................7
FY2000: 302(b) Suballocation..................................7
Congressional Action on the Budget.............................8
FY2000: Senate Bill, H.R. 2587/S. 1283..........................8
Federal Funds...........................................8
Local Funds............................................9
General Provisions......................................12
Senate Floor Consideration of S. 1283.......................15
FY2000: House Bill, H.R. 2587................................15
Federal Funds..........................................15
Local Funds...........................................16
General Provisions......................................16
House Floor Consideration of H.R. 2587.....................17
FY2000: Conference Committee Bill, H.R. 2587...................18
Federal Funds..........................................18
Local Funds...........................................18
General Provisions......................................19
Presidential Veto of H.R. 2587................................19
FY2000: H.R. 3064.........................................20
House Bill............................................20
Senate Bill............................................20
Conference Committee Version of H.R. 3064..................20
Presidential Veto of H.R. 3064.............................21
FY2000: H.R. 3194, Consolidated Appropriations for FY2000;
P.L. 106-113 ..........................................22
Key Policy Issues...............................................23
Needle Exchange...........................................23
Medical Marijuana..........................................24
Reserve Fund and Future General Fund Surpluses..................24
Tuition Assistance..........................................25
Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts...................25
Abortion ................................................. 26
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2000............1
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special Federal Payment Funds:
Proposed FY2000 Appropriations..............................10
Table 3. District of Columbia General: District of Columbia Funds.........13
Appropriations for FY2000:
District of Columbia
Most Recent Developments
On November 29, 1999 President Clinton signed into law P.L. 106-113, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2000, formerly H.R. 3194. The Act
appropriates FY2000 funds for the District of Columbia; the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary; Foreign Operations; the Department of
Interior; and the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations. As originally forwarded to the conference committee on November
18, 1999, H.R. 3194 provided FY2000 appropriations solely for the District of
Columbia. H.R. 3194 was the third attempt to appropriate funds for the District
of Columbia for FY2000. As passed by Congress and signed by the President , Title
I of Division A of P.L. 106-113 appropriates $436 million in special federal
payments to the District of Columbia.
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2000
Committee MarkupConf. ReportApproved
HouseHouseSenateSenateConf.President’s
ReportPassageReportPassageReport Action House SenateHouseSenate
H.R. 2587
9/9/999/16/99vetoed
7/20/99 6/24/99 H.Rept.106-249 7/29/99 S.Rept. 106-88 7/1/99 H.Rept.106-299 Yea-208 Yea-52 9/28/99
Nay-206 Nay-39
H.R. 3064
10/28/99 11/2/99 vetoed
na na na 10/14/99 na 10/15/99 H.Rept.106-419 Yea-218 Yea-49 11/3/99
Nay-211 Nay-48
H.R. 3194
11/18/9911/19/99 11/29/99
nanana11/3/99na11/3/99H.Rept.106-479Yea-296Yea-74P.L. 106-
Nay-135 Nay-24 113
Background
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
as evidenced by four consecutive years of balanced municipal budgets. Working in
concert with the District’s elected political leadership, the Authority and the CFO
have implemented a series of financial and management reforms. These reforms, the
shifting of some state-like functions to the federal government, improved tax
collections, and an improved economy have resulted in two consecutive years of
budget surpluses, with the possibility of yet a third.
The District ended FY1997 with a surplus of $185,900,000. For FY1998, the
city’s budget surplus was $112,492,000. The FY1998 surplus was in part the result
of the National Capital Revitalization Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33). The Act allocated
to the city more than $5 billion in federal funds; transferred government financial
responsibility for prisons and court operations; and the accumulated pension liability
for police, firefighters, teachers, and judges to the federal government. The Act also
increased the federal share for Medicaid from 50% to 70%.
At the end of FY1998, the District’s accumulated general fund balance was $112
million. The city’s accumulated general fund surplus at the end of FY1999 is
projected to be $282 million, according to the District’s proposed FY2000 budget.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999 [P.L. 105-277, Division A,
Sec. 101(c)], requires the inclusion of a $150 million operating reserve in any budget
submitted for congressional approval, beginning with the budget for FY2000. Based
on this provision, the District’s proposed FY2000 budget would produce a projected
FY2000 year-end surplus of $313 million.
Changes in District Leadership
During 1998, the District’s elected political leadership changed. On November
5, 1998, voters elected the District’s former CFO, Anthony Williams, to be mayor of
the District of Columbia. Mr. Williams, who had served three years as the District’s
CFO before resigning on June 8, 1998, ran on his record as CFO. Mr. Williams
defeated four veteran members of the Council of the District of Columbia (the
Council) during the primary and general elections.
Changes in the city’s mayoral leadership were also accompanied by changes in
the city’s elected legislative body, the Council of the District of Columbia. In the
general election in November 1998, District voters elected three new city council
members—Vincent Orange, Jim Graham, and Phil Mendelson— and reelected David
Catania, who had been elected in December 1997 in a special election. Catania and
the three new Council members, who unseated established incumbents, ran on reform-
minded, “good government” platforms.
The District voters also elected five members to the city’s elected school board.
They include Gail Dixon (At-large), Westy Byrd (Ward 2), Tom Kelly (Ward 7),
William Lockridge (Ward 8), and Dwight Singleton (Ward 4). None had served
previously on the elected school board. In addition, the school board successfully
challenged the Authority’s power to appoint an education oversight committee,
arguing that the oversight committee lacked the authority to usurp the board’s
powers. This led to the signing of an agreement between the Authority and the school
board that would allow the school board to regain control of the public schools by
June 30, 2000.
In addition to changes in elected leadership, there were changes in the
composition of the Authority. During the three-month period from June through
August the President appointed four new members to the five-member Authority,
including a new chair. In mid-June 1998, the President appointed Robert P. Watkins,
a former federal prosecutor, and Dr. Alice Rivlin, vice chair of the Federal Reserve
Board, to the Authority for three-year terms. The President also reappointed
Constance Newman to a one-year term on July 29, 1998. On August 4, 1998, the
President appointed Eugene Kinlow, a board member of Washington Metropolitan
Transit Authority, and Darius Mans, a World Bank economist, to two-year terms on
the Authority. September 1, 1998 marked the start of the terms of the newly
appointed members of the Authority. The President designated Dr. Rivlin as the
Authority’s new chair, replacing Dr. Andrew Brimmer. Also stepping down from the
Authority were Joyce Ladner, Edward Singletary, and Stephen Harlan.
Management Reform
On March 5, 1999, the President signed the District of Columbia Management
Restoration Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-1). The act repeals the District of Columbia
Management Reform Act of 1997 (Subtitle B of Title XI of the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997, P.L. 105-33), thus restoring to the mayor management authority for the daily
operation of the city’s nine largest departments.
The act allows the mayor to appoint and dismiss department heads. It also
restores the Council’s authority to confirm mayoral appointments without the
concurrence of the Authority. This transfer in management authority represents
progress by the city’s elected government, working with the Authority, in its effort
to restore self-government largely lost since April 1995. In restoring the mayor ‘s
management authority Congress seeks greater accountability and less diffusion of
responsibility by clarifying the lines of responsibility and authority between the mayor
and the Authority.
The change in the Authority’s leadership and the election of Anthony Williams
as mayor has coincided with statutory changes in the relationship between elected city
officials and the Authority. In the past the Authority took a much more direct role in
daily operations of the District government. Mayor Williams, the former CFO,
successfully lobbied the Authority to transfer control of the nine major agencies from
the Chief Management Officer (CMO) to the mayor, restoring some measure of home
rule. The transfer of power to hire and dismiss the department heads in charge of the
city’s nine largest agencies changes the role of the Authority from direct management
to oversight.
Management reforms have proceeded unevenly, according to a variety of
observers. Despite progress made in some agencies, others have recently faltered.
The police department is reported to have been slow to decrease the number of
officers doing administrative work; response time problems persist in the District’s
911 (emergency) and 1010 (non-emergency) telephone system. In addition, the
District is losing $1.8 million annually because it maintains 9,000 unused telephone
lines. Moreover, the city’s property management department acknowledged that the
District has been leasing at least eight blighted, vacant, or abandoned buildings for a
period of years. An additional 162 blighted and abandoned buildings including
schools, tax delinquent housing and commercial real estate controlled by the city have
been identified by city agencies.
District of Columbia City Council Reform
In early 1999, two studies critical of the Council’s operations were released. In
January 1999, The National Conference of State Legislatures released a Report to the
Council of the District of Columbia: Building a Stronger, More Effective Institution.
The study, which was conducted at the request of the Council, detailed problems in
the operation and organization of the District’s legislative body, created under the
Home Rule Act of 1974. In February, the DC Appleseed Center released its study of
the operation and organization of the Council, entitled Operational Reform of the
District of Columbia Council: A Fix-It-Yourself Manual. Both reports criticized the
operations of the Council and recommended reforms. The studies found the Council
too reliant on the use of the emergency legislation process, noting that it used the
emergency process to pass nearly half of its legislation. The studies also found that
the Council is hampered by operational and structural problems such as: the
fragmented and parochial nature of its committee structure; the prevalence of
patronage in its committee staffing; and the lack of a centralized professional staff
capable of providing in-depth analysis of proposed legislation. The studies also noted
the Council’s inconsistent execution of its oversight responsibilities, and the
unfocused and undisciplined nature of public hearings.
Included among the various recommendations of the studies are the following:
!abolish the current committee structure and the practice of allowing the chair
of each Council committee to select committee staff;
!create a centralized, permanent resource of professionally trained public policy
staffers capable of performing legislative and public policy research, bill
drafting, fiscal analysis, and related legislative services;
!improve dissemination of information to the public;
!provide timely distribution of proposed bills and amendments to Council
members to allow each member sufficient time to formulate an informed
opinion concerning a proposal’s meaning and impact; and
!improve the Council’s standard legislative process by providing better and
more timely information to Council members and the public.
Public Education
For the first time in four years, the District of Columbia public schools opened
on time in September 1998. However, despite this minor accomplishment, the school
system faced challenges in meeting the needs of its students. 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.
In April 1998, General Julius Becton resigned as chief executive of the District
of Columbia public schools and was replaced by Arlene Ackerman. On November 3,
1998, voters elected five new members to the school board. In late October 1998, the
Authority’s chair, Alice Rivlin, signed a memorandum on returning authority to the
Board of Education, offering the elected school board the promise of complete return
of responsibility and authority for operations of the District’s public schools by June
30, 2000. In 1996, the Authority had declared the school system to be in a state of
crisis, stripped the elected school board of its powers, and appointed an emergency
board of trustees. In January 1998, the elected school board successfully challenged
the Authority’s power to transfer its oversight and management powers to the
appointed emergency board of trustees. The Rivlin memorandum of October, 1998,
gives the elected school board some input on school discipline and facilities, and
promises to increase the elected board’s decision-making powers. The elected board
continues to retain the power to grant charters to groups seeking to start public
charter schools.
In 1998, the District experienced an expansion in the number of public charter
schools. These schools are financially supported by public education funds, but
operate independently of the school system bureaucracy. In 1998, 22 institutions
received charter school designation. By September 1999, the number of charter
schools is expected to reach 29. During the 1997-1998 school year, three charter
schools operated in the city. Currently, approximately 3,600 (5%) of the total student
population in the District of Columbia attends public charter schools.
In August 26, 1998, during testimony before the House Oversight Subcommittee
on the District of Columbia, Constance Newman, a member of the Authority,
identified problems in the school systems special education program. The District
public school system provides special education services to nearly 7,700 students,
approximately 10%t of the District’s public school population. The number of
students seeking special education assistance is expected to grow to 11,000. This
growth in special education needs has implications for the future cost of education
and the pace of educational reform. The school system has budgeted $167 million for
special education services for FY1999, which is 30% of the school system’s total
budget.
Funding is not the only issue. Delays in the period between the time a student is
referred and assessed increase the number of students placed in private educational
institutions, which adds to cost of special education. Concern about the cost of these
delays prompted Congress to include a provision in the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY1999 that extends the time period between referral and
assessment of a student’s with special education needs from 50 days to 120 days. In
addition, in September, 1998, the Superior Court appointed two receivers to improve
educational instruction at the Oak Hill Prison School, which houses District youth
offenders.
In response, the Council passed PR 13-113, on April 13, 1999. The resolution
establishes a special committee (Council Special Education Program Investigation
Special Committee) to investigate the delivery of special education services, and
includes all members of the City Council of District of Columbia The resolution gives
the Special Committee one year to investigate and recommend improvements in the
delivery of services. 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.
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 FY2000, 7%
of proposed total general fund expenditures ($4.637 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
$352 million in proposed spending controlled by court order. The budget does not
include cost estimates for two other agencies controlled by court appointed receivers:
the District of Columbia Public Housing Authority, and the Oak Hill Prison School.
In September 1998, the District of Columbia Superior Court appointed two
receivers to manage the daily operations of the Oak Hill Prison School. The new
receivers appointed by the court are Peter Leone and Sheri Mitchell of the University
of Maryland. The judge stated that he was not satisfied with educational services
provided to the youth offenders housed at the Oak Hill Prison, located in Laurel,
Maryland. After appointing the receivers the judge stated that the operations of the
school could be returned to the District school system before the next school year.
The city could also see the return of the Housing Authority from receivership by
the year 2000, according to press reports. The agency has been in receivership since
1995. Legislation has been introduced by Council Chair Linda Cropp that would allow
the agency to retain its independent status. Despite progress made by the District’s
public housing agency, there are no indications that three of the four other agencies
under court ordered receivership are prepared to be returned to District government
control any time soon.
Budget Request
No Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999
No additional funding for the District of Columbia was requested by the Clinton
Administration or the Authority, and none was included in the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999.
FY2000: The President’s Budget Request
On February 1, 1999, the Clinton Administration released its FY2000 budget
recommendations. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $393 million in
federal payments to the District of Columbia. The Administration also included $17
million for the Department of Education to support the college access legislation that
would grant District residents in-state tuition status at public colleges and universities
in neighboring states.
The Administration’s budget request for the District of Columbia includes $80.3
million in funds for activities of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
of the District of Columbia. This would be a $20 million increase above the program’s
FY1999 level of $59 million. The major portion ($13 million) of the proposed
increase would fund parole, probation, and offender supervision activities. The public
defender and pretrial services agencies would receive $7.6 million more in federal
assistance payments than the $25.6 million appropriated in FY1999.
For the second consecutive year, the budget did not include an unrestricted
federal payment or federal contribution to the city; nor does the budget contain
funding requests for federal payments for mental health activities, school construction,
or special education. These proposals were included in the District’s consensus
budget. The District is seeking $117.3 in mental health assistance, $73.1 million in
school construction assistance, and $30 million for special education. In its FY1999
payments to the District the federal government included $30 million in special
education funding to address longstanding problems in processing and evaluating
students with special needs.
FY2000: 302(b) Suballocation
Section 302(a) 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 Appropriation Committees in the House
and Senate to subdivide their 302(a) allocation of budget authority and outlays among
the 13 appropriation subcommittees.
On June 24, 1999, the Senate Appropriation Committee approved a revised
suballocation for the District of $393 million was consistent with the Administration’s
budget request. The House Appropriations Committee approved 302(b) suballocation
of $453 million in budget authority for FY2000 for the District of Columbia. The
Senate bill, S. 1283, would appropriate $410.7 million in budget authority for
FY2000. This is consistent with the Senate’s revised 302(b) suballocation.
FY2000: District Budget Request
On May 11, 1999, the Council approved a $4.7 billion budget for FY2000. The
council’s budget proposal, supported by the mayor and the Authority, includes $614.1
million in general and special federal payments. The FY2000 budget submitted for
congressional approval also included a $150 million reserve fund mandated by the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1999 and $41 million in productivity,
procurement, and management savings.
The Council also also approved a so-called tax parity act. According to its
sponsors, this Act is intended to encourage economic development in the District by
bringing the District’s personal and business income tax structure in line with
surrounding jurisdictions in the states of Maryland and Virginia. The tax parity act
passed by the Council is projected to reduce commercial property taxes and personal
and business income taxes by $300 million over a five-year period. The measure has
been the source of debate among city leaders and during congressional hearings.
Democrats on the House and Senate on the District of Columbia appropriations
subcommittees have raised concerns about the need to improve services before the
city undertakes tax cuts. Republicans on the House and Senate subcommittees
support the tax cuts as part of a larger strategy to encourage business development
and reverse the exodus of middle class families.
Congressional Action on the Budget
Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fund certain
activities, but also reviews the District’s entire budget including the expenditure of
local funds. The District subcommittees of both the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees must approve — and may modify — the District’s budget. House and
Senate versions of the District budget are reconciled in a joint conference committee
and must be passed by the House and the Senate. After this final action by the
House and the Senate, the District’s budget is forwarded to the President who can
sign it into law or veto it.
FY2000: Senate Bill, H.R. 2587/S. 1283
Federal Funds. On July 1, 1999, the Senate approved S.1283, a bill providing
FY2000 appropriations for the District of Columbia. On August 3, 1999, the Senate
received H.R. 2587, the House bill appropriating funds for the District of Columbia
for FY2000. The Senate struck all but the enacting clause in H.R. 2587, and
substituted the language of S. 1283. The Senate version of H.R. 2587 includes
$410.7 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia (See Table 2). This is
$208.8 million less than provided in FY1999. This decrease in federal funding
coincides with the District’s improved fiscal prospects including a projected $282
million budget surplus for FY2000. The Senate Appropriations bill included funding
increases for court operations, courts services and offender supervision. The bill
would have provided the following:
!an additional $8.8 million for court operations with the majority of the increase
allocated to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia; and
!a $20.9 million increase in funding for parole revocation and probation
activities ($13.3 million) and pretrial and public defender services ($7.6
million).
The bill specifically earmarked $5.9 million in parole revocation and probation funds
for drug screening and testing activities.
The Senate also recommends a $17 million federal payment to fund a legislative
initiative that grants eligible residents of the District of Columbia in-state tuition status
when seeking college admission in neighboring states. The Committee also approved
$1 million in funding for a crime fighting initiative aimed at reducing the street corner
sale of illegal drugs.
In addition to the special federal payments identified above, the District estimates
that it will receive an additional $1.508 billion in federal funds to administer various
federal grants provided to state, county, and local governments. These grant funds
combined with the special federal payments would provide the District with $1.919
billion in federal funds for FY2000.
Local Funds. The District’s budget as approved by the Senate Appropriations
Committee includes $4.658 billion in general fund operating expenses and $676
million in enterprise funds representing $5.334 billion in total operating expenses.
The budget would also limit to 5% a proposed increase in salary compensation for
Council members. This would provide an annual salary of $84,635 for council
members, who are considered part-time legislators, with no restrictions on outside
income. The budget as approved by the Council would have increased council
member salaries by 15% to $92,464. The Senate bill let stand a provision included in
the District’s proposed budget that would increase the salary of the chair of the city
council to $102,000. The council chair would continued to be prohibited from
earning outside income.
The Senate bill increases the amount of funds available for economic
development activities by $31 million above the amount approved for FY1999. In
addition, the bill, as approved by the full Senate, would increase funding for public
education by $78 million, which is $17 million more than the city’s consensus budget
blueprint. The bill would also increase funding for public safety activities by $23
million.
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special Federal Payment Funds:
Proposed FY2000 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
FY2000
H.R. 3064H.R.
H.R. 2587 (vetoed)vetoed3194
Enacted City’s
FY1999 Admin. budget House Senate Conf. Conf. Conf.
Federal Payments: General and Special Fund
0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
184.8 176.0 176.0 183.0 176.0 176.0 176.0 176.0
128.0 137.4 137.4 100.7 136.4 99.7 99.7 99.7
Court operations121.0128.4128.491.7128.499.799.799.7
Court of Appeals[7.8][7.4][7.4][7.2][7.4][7.2][7.2][7.2]
Superior Court[72.4][78.6][78.6][75.2][78.6][75.2][75.2][68.3]
Court system[40.7][42.5][42.5][9.2][42.4][9.3][9.3][16.1]
Child Abuse and Neglect[6.9][6.9][6.9]0.0a[6.9]0.00.00.0
Indigent representation[25.0][26.0][26.0]0.0b[26.0]0.00.00.0
Capital Improvements7.09.09.09.08.0[8.0][8.0][8.0]
c 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 33.3
59.4 80.3 $80.3 105.5 $80.3 93.8 93.8 93.8
Parole Revocation, Adult
Probation and Offender[33.8][47.1][47.1][69.4][47.1][58.6][58.6][58.6]
Supervision
Drug testing and screening———[32.2][5.9][20.5][20.5][20.5]
Public Defender Service[14.5][17.4][17.4][17.4][17.4][17.4][17.4][17.4]
Pretrial Service Agency[11.1][15.8][15.8][18.7][15.8][17.8][17.8][17.8]
0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
FY2000
H.R. 3064H.R.
H.R. 2587 (vetoed)vetoed3194
Enacted City’s
FY1999 Admin. budget House Senate Conf. Conf. Conf.
1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5
1.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 2.5 2.5
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.25 0.0 0.25 0.25 0.25
0.0 0.0 0.0 -- --- --- --- 6.7
619.5 393.7 614.1 453.0 410.7 430.1 429.1 435.8
Funds would be provided under a separate heading-- Defender Services for the District of Columbia Courts. The Committee’s recommendation
would be provided under a separate heading-- Defender Services for the District of Columbia Courts. The Committee’s recommendation
creation of a separate
to ensure payment of attorneys representing indigent persons, guardianship, and abused and neglected children in court proceedings.
The Senate Appropriations Committee made only a few changes in how the
District’s proposed budget would use locally generated funds. The Senate Committee
reduced the amount of funds available to the City Administrator’s office to $12.8
million . This is $12.3 million below the $25.1 million identified in the District’s
budget for FY2000. This $12.8 million is $11.9 million more than was available in
FY1999. During FY1999, the many of the duties and responsibilities of the city
administrator were subsumed by the chief management officer. When Congress passed
the District of Columbia Management Restoration Act of 1999, on March 8, 1999,
it transferred to the mayor many of the responsibilities for the daily operation of the
District government. The increase in funding above the FY1999 allocation reflects
the transfer of responsibility, staff, and funding from the chief management officer to
the city administrator.
The Senate Committee bill requires the city to maintain a $150 million reserve
fund. The purpose of the reserve fund is the protect the District against future
expenditure overruns or revenue shortfalls. During congressional hearings on its
budget the city sought to persuade congressional appropriators to reduce or eliminate
the $150 million reserve requirement. District officials noted the city had eliminated
its accumulated deficit by the end of FY1998 and had realized a budget surplus of
$112 million. The District officials noted that the fund balance is projected to grow
to $292 by the end of the current fiscal year.
District officials contend that the city’s general fund surpluses of the last two
years (1997 and 1998), as well as projected surpluses, exceed the 5% percent of
general fund expenditure threshold that Wall Street uses to assess a local
government’s fiscal health. The Committee bill includes a provision that would require
District officials to report to Congress any planned expenditure from the fund at least
General Provisions. The Senate Committee bill, S. 1283, as reported, includes
several policy related general provisions. The bill would continue to prohibit the use
of District revenues to fund the following activities:
!abortions except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest;
!the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992, which would provide health
care coverage and other benefits to unmarried couples not related by blood;
and
!civil court challenges or petition drives seeking to provide the District of
Columbia with congressional voting representation.
The bill would also establish April 1, 2000, as the deadline for the removal of all
inmates classified above the medium security level from the Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio.
In addition to the $150 million reserve fund, the Committee bill includes a
provision that would require a 4% surplus general fund balance. The bill would allow
any amount above a 4% general fund surplus to be used for debt reduction or non-
recurring expenses. However, the Committee bill would limit the amount that could
be used for non-recurring expenses to no more than half the amount above the four
percent general fund balance requirement. The Committee bill also includes a
provision that would allow the city to use tax abatement to encourage revitalization
of commercial properties in empowerment zones.
Table 3. District of Columbia General: District of Columbia Funds
(in millions of dollars)
FY2000
H.R. 3064
H.R. 2587 (vetoed)vetoedH.R. 3194
Enacted District’s
FY1999 budget House Senate Conf. Conf. House
Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds
GENERAL FUND
$164.144 174.667 162.356 162.356 162.356 167.356 162.356
159.039 190.335 190.335 190.335 190.335 190.335 190.335
755.786 778.670 785.760 778.470 785.760 778.770 778.770
788.956 850.411 867.411 867.411 867.411 867.411 867.411
1,514.751 1,525.996 1,526.361 1,526.111 1,526.361 1,526.361 1,526.361
266.912 271.395 271.395 271.395 271.395 271.395 271.395
318.979 337.077 345.577 337.077 342.077 342.077 342.077
0.000 8.500 8.500 8.500 8.500 8.500 8.500
0.000 150.000 150.000 150.000 150.000 150.000 150.000
7.840 3.140 3.140 3.140 3.140 3.140 3.140
382.170 328.417 328.417 328.417 328.417 328.417 328.417
38.453 38.286 38.286 38.286 38.286 38.286 38.286
11.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000 9.000
7.926 7.950 7.950 7.950 7.950 7.950 7.950
FY2000
H.R. 3064
H.R. 2587 (vetoed)vetoedH.R. 3194
Enacted District’s
FY1999 budget House Senate Conf. Conf. House
{10.000} {20.000} {20.000} {20.000} {20.000} {20.000} {20.000}
{10.000} {21.457} {21.457} {21.457} {21.457} {21.457} {21.457}
6.674 0.000 0.000* 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 18.000 20.000
4,418.030 4,653.682 4,694.236 4,658.286 $4,670.826 $4,668.834 $4,668.834
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
273.314 279.608 279.608 279.608 279.608 279.608 279.608
225.200 234.400 234.400 234.400 234.400 234.400 234.400
8.751 10.846 10.846 10.846 10.846 10.846 10.846
66.764 89.008 89.008 89.008 89.008 89.008 89.008
18.202 9.892 9.892 9.892 9.892 9.892 9.892
9.432 1.810 1.810 1.810 1.810 1.810 1.810
48.139 50.226 50.226 50.226 50.226 50.226 50.226
2.108 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
5.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
2.501 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
7.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
.640 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
FY2000
H.R. 3064
H.R. 2587 (vetoed)vetoedH.R. 3194
Enacted District’s
FY1999 budget House Senate Conf. Conf. House
5,079.008 5,329.472 5,370.026 5,334.076 $5,346.616 $5,362,626 $5,362,626
CAPITAL OUTLAY
1,711.161 798.666 1,218.638 1,415.806 1,260,524 1,218,637 1,218,637
$6,790.169 $6,231.475 6,785.833 $6,749.882 $6,607.140 $6,778,432 $6,778,432
Senate Floor Consideration of S. 1283. On July 1, 1999 the Senate considered
S. 1283 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 106-88). The
Senate passed by voice vote the Committee-approved bill with few spending changes.
During floor debate on the bill, the Senate did consider eight amendments. It passed
six of those amendments. The other two amendments were withdrawn. One of the
withdrawn amendments would have extended the prohibition on the use of city and
federal funds to pay for a needle exchange program. The other amendment that was
withdrawn would have deleted the proposed $17 million federal contribution for the
tuition assistance program.
The floor amendments adopted by the Senate include provisions that would:
!amend the District of Columbia Code to require the arrest and termination of
parole of any prisoner found in possession of illegal drugs;
!require the General Accounting Office to undertake a study of the District’s
criminal justice system and to report its findings and recommendations to
Congress not later than one year after enactment of the amendment;
!encourage the District public schools to develop a violence prevention
program; and
!direct the National Park Service to expedite the site selection of two cellular
towers in Rock Creek Park.
FY2000: House Bill, H.R. 2587
Federal Funds. On July 20, 1999, the House Appropriations Committee
reported out H.R. 2587, a bill providing FY2000 appropriations for the District of
Columbia. The House Appropriations Committee bill would provide $453 million in
federal payments to the District of Columbia (See Table 2). This is $166 million less
than provided in FY1999, but $43 million more than recommended by the Senate.
The bill would provide the following:
!a reduction of $27.3 million for court operations with the majority of the
decrease coming from a proposed transfer of funds to a new defender services
account;
!a newly created court-related defender services account totaling $33.3 million
to be used to pay attorneys representing indigent persons, guardianship, and
child abuse and neglect court cases; and
!a $46.1 million increase in funding for parole revocation and probation
activities ($35.6 million) and pretrial and public defender services ($10.5
million).
The Committee specifically earmarked $32.2 million of the total $69.4 million in
parole revocation and probation funds for drug screening and testing activities.
The House Committee also recommends a $17 million federal payment to fund
a proposed legislative initiative that would grant eligible residents of the District of
Columbia in-state tuition status when seeking college admission in other states. The
Committee also approved $1.2 million in funding for a citizens compliant review
board to review police misconduct charges.
Local Funds. The District’s budget as approved by the House Appropriations
Committee includes $4.694 billion in general fund operating expenses and $676
million in enterprise funds representing $5.370 billion in total operating expenses.
The House Appropriations Committee bill would:
!increase the amount of funds available for economic development activities by
$31 million above the amount approved for FY1999, which is consistent with
the actions of the Senate;
!increase funding for public education by $78 million, also consistent with the
Senate’s bill;
!increase funding for public safety activities by $30 million above the FY1999
level;
!reduce the amount of funds available to the City Administrator’s office to
$12.8 million, which is consistent with the Senate’s actions; and
!require the city to maintain a $150 million reserve fund, which is consistent
with language in the Senate bill.
General Provisions. The House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 2587, as
reported, includes several general provisions that were also included in the Senate-
passed bill. Like the Senate bill, H.R. 2587 would continue to prohibit the use of
District revenues to fund:
!abortions except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest;
!the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992, which would provide health
care coverage and other benefits to unmarried couples not related by blood;
and
!civil court challenges or petition drives seeking to provide the District of
Columbia with congressional voting representation.
Both the House and Senate bills would establish April 1, 2000, as the deadline for the
removal of all inmates classified above the medium security level from the Northeast
Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio.
H.R. 2587 includes several provisions not found in S. 1283. The House
Appropriations Committee-passed bill would:
!lift the prohibition on the use of federal funds for a needle exchange program
intended to reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS;
!lift the prohibition on the use of federal funds to count ballots related to
medical marijuana initiative; and
!require the city’s deputy mayor for economic development to undertake an
inventory of rental property lease agreements entered into by all city agencies.
In addition to the $150 million reserve fund, the Committee bill includes a
provision that would require the city to allocate general fund surpluses as follows:
!the first $250 million in excess or surplus revenues shall be used to finance
seasonal cash needs in lieu of short-term borrowing;
!amounts above the first $250 million in surplus revenues are to be used to
accelerate repayment of cash borrowed from the Water and Sewer Fund; and
!third, surplus funds may then be used to reduce outstanding long-term bond
indebtedness.
This differs from the Senate bill which would allow any amount above a 4% general
fund surplus to be used for debt reduction or non-recurring expenses.
House Floor Consideration of H.R. 2587. On July 29, 1999, the House
completed and passed H.R. 2587, an amended version of the House Appropriations
Committee-approved bill. The bill was first brought to the floor on July 27, 1999,
after being reported out of Committee on July 20, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-249). The
House passed the amended bill by a vote of 333 yeas to 92 nays. During floor debate
on the bill seven amendments were considered. The House passed three, rejected
two, and two amendments were withdrawn by their sponsors.
One of the withdrawn amendments would have instituted penalties for the
possession of tobacco products by minors. The second amendment that was
withdrawn would have specifically stated that the city could use funds to purchase
automated external defribillators.
The House rejected an amendment that would have barred adoption of children
by unmarried couples. Also rejected by the House was an amendment introduced by
the District’s non-voting delegate, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, that would have
stricken Sec. 146 from H.R. 2587. Sec. 146 of H.R. 2587, would continue to prohibit
the use of District of Columbia or federal funds in the filing of a petition or civil action
seeking to gain congressional voting representation in the House and the Senate for
residents of the District.
The House passed an amendment that would extend the prohibition on the use
of city and federal funds to pay for a needle exchange program. Earlier, the House
Appropriations Committee considered language that would have allowed the city to
use city funds, but not federal funds, for a needle exchange program. Proponents of
a needle exchange program contended that it would help reduce the rate of HIV
infections caused by the sharing of needles by drug addicted persons. Opponents
contend that needle exchange programs are ineffective and amount to government
sanctioning of the use of illegal drugs. They also point to the appropriation of $13
million in additional funds for drug treatment. A similar Senate amendment
prohibiting he use of District or federal funds for a needle exchange was introduced
but withdrawn during Senate floor consideration of S. 1283.
The House approved an amendment introduced by the Chairman of the District
of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee, Representative Istook, that would allow
the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to develop a sex offender
registry. The House also approved an amendment that would allow the city to tally
and make public the results of last November’s medical marijuana ballot initiative.
But, the amendment would prohibit the District from legalizing or reducing the
criminal penalty for the possession, use, or distribution of a schedule 1 substance,
which would included marijuana, as defined by the Control Substance Act.
FY2000: Conference Committee Bill, H.R. 2587
Federal Funds. On September 16, 1999 the Senate approved the conference
committee version of H.R. 2587, a bill providing FY2000 appropriations for the
District of Columbia. On September 9, 1999, the House passed the conference
committee version of H.R. 2587. On August 5, 1999, a House and Senate conference
committee reported out its version of H.R. 2587. The conference committee bill,
which was accompanied by H.Rept. 106-299, would provide $430 million in federal
payments to the District of Columbia (See Table 2). This is $189 million less than
provided in FY1999, but $19 million more than recommended by the Senate. The bill
would provides the following:
!a reduction of $21 million for court operations with the majority of the
decrease coming from a proposed transfer of funds to a new defender services
account;
!a newly created court-related defender services account totaling $33.3 million
to be used to pay attorneys representing indigent persons, guardianship, and
child abuse and neglect court cases, as recommended by the House;
!$17 million for the tuition support/ college access program;
! $5 million in foster care adoption incentives; and
!a $22.8 million increase in funding for parole revocation, probation, pretrial
and public defender services.
Local Funds. The District’s budget as approved by the conference committee
includes $4.671 billion in general fund operating expenses and $676 million in
enterprise funds. The conference committee bill would:
!increase the amount of funds available for economic development activities by
$31 million above the amount approved for FY1999, which is consistent with
the actions of the House and the Senate;
!increase funding for public education by $78 million, also consistent with the
House and Senate’s bill;
!increase funding for public safety activities by $30 million above the FY1999
level;
!reduce the amount of funds available to the City Administrator’s office to
$12.8 million, which is consistent with the Senate’s actions; and
!require the city to maintain a $150 million reserve fund, which is consistent
with language in the Senate bill.
General Provisions. The conference committee version of H.R. 2587, as
reported, includes several general provisions that were also included in the House and
Senate-passed bills. The conference committee bill would prohibit the use of federal
and District revenues to fund, finance, administer, or undertake:
!abortions except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest;
!the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992, which would provide health
care coverage and other benefits to unmarried couples not related by blood;
and
!civil court challenges or petition drives seeking to provide the District of
Columbia with congressional voting representation.
The conference committee-approved bill includes two provisions included in the
House, but not the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2587. The conference bill would:
!prohibit the use of federal or local funds to establish or maintain a needle
exchange program; and
!prohibit the District from decriminalizing the medical use of marijuana.
The conference committee bill includes $4.7 billion in general fund operating
expenses, and $676 million in enterprise funds. It would appropriate $430.1 million
in special federal payments to the District of Columbia.
The conference committee version of H.R. 2587, would allocate $99.7 million
for court operations, and an additional $33.3 million for defender services for
attorneys representing indigent persons and abused and neglected children under a
new account. The bill also would appropriate $93.8 million for offender supervision
activities. The conference committee bill includes a $150 million reserve, and requires
the city to maintain a 4% general fund balance. The bill also includes $5 million in
federal funds for innovative programs intended to increase the rate of adoption of
children in foster care.
Presidential Veto of H.R. 2587
On September 28, 1999, with the support of the District’s elected leadership,
President Clinton vetoed H.R. 2587, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY2000. In his veto message returning the unsigned bill to Congress, the President
noted that he vetoed the bill because it contained “a number of highly objectionable
provisions that are unwarranted intrusions into local citizens’ decisions about local
matters.” Included among the provisions that the President wanted eliminated from
the bill were provisions:
!prohibiting the funding of a needle exchange program;
!prohibiting the use of federal and District funds for abortions except for in
cases where the mother’s life is endangered or in situations involving rape or
incest;
!prohibiting the implementation of the Domestic Partners Act of 1992;
!prohibiting the use of federal and District funds in any effort intended to win
voting representation in the Congress for District residents;
!limiting fees paid to attorneys representing student seeking special education
assistance; and
!decriminalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
The bill also included a number of provisions supported by the President
including provisions providing:
!$17 million in funding for a tuition assistance program that would provide
scholarship assistance to qualified District students attending colleges and
universities;
!additional funding to promote the adoption of a children in foster care; and
!additional funding for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
FY2000: H.R. 3064
House Bill. On October 14, 1999, two weeks after the President vetoed H.R.
2587, the House passed H.R. 3064 appropriating funds for the District of Columbia
for FY2000. Many of the social riders that had provoked a Presidential veto of H.R.
2587 were also found in the House version of H.R. 3064, including provisions
limiting abortions and prohibiting the implementation of the medical marijuana
initiative and a needle exchange program. The House bill did not include provisions
intended to expedite the placement of cellular towers in Rock Creek Park.
Senate Bill. On October 15, 1999, the Senate completed its version of H.R.
3064. The Senate version of H.R. 3064 contains many of the same provisions
included in the House version of the bill. The Senate bill also includes the provision
calling for the expedited consideration of the placement of cellular towers in Rock
Creek Park. The cellular tower provision was opposed by the city on the grounds that
it circumvented local zoning authority.
Conference Committee Version of H.R. 3064. On October 27, 1999, a
conference committee on the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000
reported its version of H.R. 3064 (H.Rept.106-419). The conference bill included
a number of social riders and home rule-related prohibitions opposed by the city’s
elected leadership. The bill would:
!prohibit the city from using funds to defeat any legislation pending before
Congress or any state legislature;
!limit the use of federal and District funds for abortion services in those
instances where the mother’s health is endangered or the pregnancy is a result
of rape or incest;
!prohibit the implementation of the District’s Domestic Partnership Health
Care Benefits Act of 1992; and
!prohibit the implementation of Initiative 59, the medical marijuana provision.
The conference committee bill would continue to limit the compensation
awarded to attorneys representing students with special education needs to no more
than $50 per hour or $1,560 total. However, the bill includes a new provision that
would allow the mayor, the control board, and the superintendent of public schools
to negotiate and agree on a new rate and amount of compensation. The conference
bill continues to prohibit the city’s Corporation Counsel from assisting in the filing of
court challenges aimed at providing District residents with voting representation in
Congress. But, the bill includes language that allows the Corporation Counsel to
review and comment on briefs in private lawsuits and to consult with officials of the
District government regarding such lawsuits. This includes pending suits involving
voting representation in Congress.
The conferees also agreed to include a provision that would prohibit the use of
federal or District funds for a needle exchange program. Congress may consider a
compromise provision that will allow the private funding of a needle exchange
program in the District. The conference committee bill includes a provision that
would expedition the consideration and placement of cellular antennae for wireless
communications in Rock Creek Park. The bill includes a provision intended to
appease District officials who complained that the process circumvented zoning and
review powers of the District government. The new provision states that the
subsection is not intended to affect or preempt existing local authority or applicable
environmental, historic preservation, or judicial review laws.
The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act for FY2000, formerly H.R. 3037, was attached to the bill during
conference consideration in a move intended to expedite its consideration. The
conference bill version of H.R. 3064 also includes a 0.97% across-the-board cut for
all discretionary programs. This cut would result in a $4.2 million reduction in federal
payments to the District of Columbia for FY2000. In addition, conferees used the
District of Columbia appropriations measure to amend the Departments of Veteran
Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act for FY2000, P.L. 106-74, to include a number of earmarked projects targeted
to receive funding under the Community Development Block Grant Economic
Development Initiative administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. The House approved the conference report on October 28, 1999. The
Senate approved the report on November 2, 1999.
Presidential Veto of H.R. 3064. On November 3, 1999, President Clinton,
vetoed H.R. 3064, as anticipated. In his veto message, the President cited the bill’s
The veto marked the second time this year the President has vetoed a funding bill for
the District of Columbia.
FY2000: H.R. 3194, Consolidated Appropriations for FY2000; P.L.
106-113
On November 2, 1999, H.R. 3194 was introduced in the House. The House and
Senate passed their respective versions of the measure on November 3, 1999. The
Senate appointed conferees on November 3, 1999 and the House appointed conferees
on November 4, 1999. As originally introduced the bill dealt exclusively with
appropriations for the District of Columbia. On November 18, 1999, in a move to
expedite consideration of a number of appropriations bills before recessing for the
year, a conference committee attached to the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act, H.R. 3194, four other appropriations. It renamed H.R. 3194, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of FY2000 and designated Division A of the bill the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000. The House, by a vote of 219 to 135
approved the conference report (H. Rept. 106-479) accompanying H.R. 3194, on
November 18, 1999. The Senate approved the measure on November 19, 1999 by a
vote of 74 to 24. On November 29, 1999, the President signed the measure into law
as P.L. 106-113.
Title I of Division A of the new District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY2000, P.L. 106-113, includes $436 billion in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia. The Act also includes many of the same social riders in H.R.
•prohibiting the implementation of the medical marijuana initiative;
•limiting the use of public funds for abortion to cases involving rape or
incest or where the mother’s health is endangered; and
•prohibiting the implementation of the Domestic Partnership Act of 1992,
which would extend medical, employment, and government benefits to
unmarried couples.
In addition, the act would allow organizations, such as the Whitman-Walker Center,
receiving public funds to administer privately funded needle exchange programs in
effort to reduce the spread of HIV. An earlier House version of H.R. 3194 would
have prohibited organizations receiving public funding from sponsoring a privately
funded needle exchange program.
P.L. 106-113 includes several compromise provisions agreed to during
congressional negotiations on H.R. 3064. P.L. 106-113 allows the mayor, the
superintendent of public schools, and the control board to establish new compensation
rates and ceiling for private attorneys representing students seeking special education
assistance. Currently, attorneys representing such students may only receive $60 an
hour and no more than $1,560 total for such cases, a rate attorneys claim is
insufficient to cover the costs of such representation. P.L. 106-113 includes a
provision that allows the city’s corporation counsel to review private lawsuits and
brief elected city leaders on their impact, but would continue to prohibit the city from
participating in or working on a private law suit seeking voting representation in
Congress.
Key Policy Issues
Needle Exchange
The creation of a needle exchange program funded with federal or District funds
is one of the key policy issues debated during House consideration of the District’s
appropriations bills for FY2000. The controversy surrounding creation of a needle
exchange program touched 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 incidents of shared needles. Opponents of
such efforts contend that such programs amount to government sanctioning of illegal
drugs by supplying drug addicted persons with the tools to use them. They content
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 conference committee versions of H.R. 2587 and H.R. 3064, which was
vetoed by the President on November 3, 1999, would have prohibited the use of
federal and District funds to finance a needle exchange program. The Senate during
consideration of its version of H.R. 2587, the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act for FY2000, did not include a provision prohibiting the creation of such a
program. The House District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee also did not
include funding for such a program in the bill forwarded to the full Appropriations
Committee. For its part the House Appropriations Committee reported a bill, H.R.
2587, that included a provision prohibiting the use of federal funds for a needle
exchange program. The bill passed by the House on July 29, 1999, would have left
intact language contained the District’s Appropriations Act for FY1999, prohibiting
the use of federal or local funds for a needle exchange program.
The conference committee version of H.R. 3064 continued the prohibition
against the public funding of a needle exchange program. Congress agreed on a
compromise that would have allowed the private funding of a needle exchange
program, but would continue to prohibit the use of federal and District funds for such
a program. Presently, only one entity, Prevention Works, a private non-profit AIDS
awareness and education program, operates a privately funded needle exchange
program.
The House version of H.R. 3194 included a provision that would prohibit any
organization that receives federal or District funds from funding a needle exchange
program with private funds. This was a reversal of language contained in H.R. 3064,
which prohibited organizations from using public funds for needle exchange activities,
but did not prevent or prohibit an organization that receives public funds from
operating a privately funded needle exchange program. P.L. 106-113 and the Senate
version of H.R. 3194 included the language of H.R. 3064, allowing organizations to
continue to receive public funds for other activities while using private funds to
finance needle exchange programs.
Medical Marijuana
The medical marijuana initiative provision in the District of Columbia
Appropriations bills is yet another issue that engenders controversy. Last year
Congress included a provision that prohibited the city from counting ballots of an
initiative that would allow the medical use of marijuana to assist persons suffering
debilitating health conditions and diseases including cancer and HIV infection. The
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000, P.L. 106-113, and H.R. 3064,
as vetoed by the President, prohibit the implementation of the medical marijuana
initiative known as Initiative 59.
A House Appropriations Committee version of H.R. 2587, the first version of
the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000, included a provision that
would have prohibited the use of federal funds to tally the results of the ballot
initiative, but would have allowed the city to use local funds to determine the outcome
of the initiative. The District of Columbia Board of Elections estimated the cost of
tallying the results as approximately $1.36. The House provision of H.R. 2587, was
later changed to include a prohibition on the use federal and District funds to
implement any law legalizing the use of marijuana, even for medical purposes. The
conference committee version of H.R. 2587, which was vetoed by the President,
would have allowed the tallying of the votes cast for and against the medical use of
marijuana, but would have kept in place all penalties for the use, distribution, or
possession of schedule 1 control substances, which would include marijuana.
Opponents of the conference committee provision content that such actions undercuts
the concept of home rule. The provision’s proponents argue that the provision allows
the people’s voice to be heard, but keeps in place federal sanctions.
Last year, the Congress’ power prohibiting the counting of a medical marijuana
ballot initiative was challenged in a suit filed by the D.C. Chapter of the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). On September 17, 1999, District Court Judge Richard
Roberts ruled that Congress, despite its unique legislative responsibility for the
District under Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, did not possess the power to stifle
or prevent political speech, which included the ballot initiative. Judge Roberts ruling
allowed the city to tally the votes on the November 1998 ballot initiative. To prevent
the implementation of the initiative, Congress had 30 days to pass a resolution of
disapproval from the date the medical marijuana ballot initiative (Initiative 59) is
certified by the Board of Elections and Ethics. Language prohibiting the
implementation of the initiative was included in P.L. 106-113; the conference version
of H.R. 3064, which was vetoed by the President; and in the House, Senate, and
conference versions of H.R. 3194.
Reserve Fund and Future General Fund Surpluses
During House and Senate hearings on the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act for FY2000, District officials unsuccessfully sought the removal of a provision
contained in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999. The provision
required the District to establish a $150 million reserve fund in future budgets starting
in FY2000.
The city contends that such a reserve fund is not needed given the city’s
surpluses of the last two years and project surpluses in the coming years. P.L. 106-
requires the city to maintain the reserve fund. The House version of H.R. 2587 would
have directed the city to use any general fund surplus above $250 million to cover
seasonal cash shortfalls in lieu of short-term borrowing, then to accelerate the
repayment of funds borrowed from the water and sewer fund, and finally to repay
down long-term debt. The Senate’s original version of H.R. 2587 required the city
to use any surplus above 4% of the general fund balance for one-time expenses and
debt reduction. P.L. 106-113 and the vetoed H.R. 3064 adopted the Senate language
that was first included in H.R. 2587.
Tuition Assistance
P.L. 106-113 (formerly H.R. 3194), like its earlier but vetoed counterparts, H.R.
3064 and H.R. 2587, includes a $17 million federal contribution to fund a legislative
initiative that grants eligible residents of the District of Columbia in-state tuition status
when seeking college admissions in state supported schools in Maryland and Virginia.
The Act also provides assistance to eligible students seeking admissions to private
institutions. On November 1, 1999, Congress completed action on the tuition
assistance program (H.R. 974), the required enabling legislation that had to be signed
by the President before the $17 million could be made available. A college access bill
was introduced in the Senate, S. 856. On September 9, 1999, the Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs, amended H.R. 974 by substituting the language contained
in S. 856 and reported the bill to the Senate accompanied by S. Rept 106-154. The
Senate passed its version of H.R. 974 on October 19, 1999. The House passed its
version of H.R. 974, on May 24, 1999. On November 1, 1999, the House receded
to the Senate amendment to H.R. 974, and passed the measure by voice vote. The
President signed the bill into law, P.L. 106-98, on November 12, 1999.
Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts
Congress has become increasingly concerned about the management of the
District’s court system. The House committee report (H.Rept. 106-249)
accompanying the House version of H.R. 2587, criticized the courts management,
and accused court administrators of playing shell games with funds appropriated for
payment of lawyers representing abused children. The House report included language
recommending that the proposed pay raise for court employees be delayed. The
conference committee-approved version of H.R. 2587, H.R. 3064, H.R. 3194
included provisions calling for a GAO report on the operation of the District’s justice
system including the courts. In addition, the conference committee-approved bills
included a provision that transfers $33.3 million in funds for lawyers representing
abused and neglected children and indigent persons to a separate account. The
provision is intended to ensure that the court administrators do not misspend
dedicated funds. P.L. 106-113 includes the same provisions.
In a related matter, on October 4, 1999, Superior Court Administrator Ulysses
Hammond announced his resignation effective February 18, 2000. Hammond had
been under increasing scrutiny and criticism over concerns surrounding the
mismanagement of court operations and budget shortfalls.
Abortion
The public funding of abortion services for District of Columbia residents is a
perennial issue debated by Congress during its annual deliberations on the District of
Columbia appropriations. P.L. 106-113, includes a provision that prohibits the use
of federal or District funds for abortion services except in cases where the life of the
mother is endangered or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. This prohibition
has been in place since 1995, when Congress approved the District of Columbia Act
for FY1996, P.L. 104-134.
Since 1979, with the passage of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of
1980, P.L. 96-93, Congress has placed some limitation or prohibition on the use of
public funds for abortion services for District residents. From 1979 to 1988,
Congress restricted the use of federal funds for abortion services to cases where the
mother’s life would be endangered or the pregnancy resulted from rape 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, it restricted the use of District and federal funds for abortion services
to cases where the mother’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy was taken to
term. The inclusion of District funds, and the elimination of rape or incest as
qualifying conditions for public funding of abortion services, was pushed for by
President Reagan, who threatened to veto the District’s appropriations act if the
abortion provision was not modified. In 1989, President Bush twice vetoed the
District’s FY1990 appropriations act over the abortion issue. He signed P.L. 101-
168. after insisting that Congress include language prohibiting the use of District
revenues to pay for abortion services except in cases where the mother’s life was
endangered.
The District successfully fought for the removal of the provision limiting District
funding of abortion services, when Congress considered and passed the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994, P.L. 103-127. The FY1994 Act also
reinstated rape and incest as qualifying circumstances allowing for the public funding
of abortion services. The District’s success was short lived. The District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134, and subsequent District of Columbia
appropriations acts, limited the use of District and federal funds for abortion services
to cases where the mother’s life is endangered or cases where the pregnancy was the
result of rape or incest.
District officials, when urging President Clinton to veto the FY2000
Appropriations Act, H.R. 2587, cited the prohibition on the use of District funds as
just another example of congressional intrusion into local matters. District officials
had hoped that Clinton’s veto would lead to the removal or modification of the
abortion provision and other social provisions they feel intrude on home rule. The
abortion prohibition was unchanged during conference consideration of H.R. 3064.
The prohibition also is included in P.L. 106-113.