Appropriations for FY2005: District of Columbia

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2005:
District of Columbia
Updated December 22, 2004
Eugene Boyd, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
William J. Krouse
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of each annual session of Congress.
Congressional practices governing the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary
measures are rooted in the Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and
statutes, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to 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 status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related congressional
activity, and is updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the
issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[ h t t p : / / w w w .crs.gov/products/appropriati o ns / a pppa g e . s ht m l ] .

Appropriations for FY2005: District of Columbia
Summary
On February 2, 2004, the Bush Administration released its FY2005 budget
recommendations. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $560.4 million
in federal payments to the District of Columbia. A major portion of the President’s
proposed federal payments and assistance to the District involves the courts and
criminal justice system. This includes funding for the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Defender Services, and the courts.
These three functions (court operations, defender services, and offender supervision)
represent $457.1 million, or 81.6%, of the President’s proposed $560.4 million in
federal payments to the District of Columbia.
On May 14, 2004, the District’s city council approved the city’s $8.2 billion
budget for FY2005. The city’s proposed budget includes $2 billion for enterprise
funds and $6.2 billion in general fund operating expenses. The proposed budget also
included a request for $1.03 billion in special federal payments, which is
substantially higher than the $560 million proposed by the President.
The District budget request also includes $165 million for the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s capital fund, a $162 million increase above
the amount appropriated in FY2004, and $102 million in special federal payments
in support of emergency preparedness activities — including $80 million for
bioterrorism preparedness, $15 million for emergency planning and security, and $7
million for a unified communications center for regional emergencies.
On July 7, 2004, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of
Columbia conducted a markup of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY2005 and forwarded the unnumbered draft bill to the House Appropriations
Committee. One week later, on July 14, 2004, the House Appropriations Committee
completed its markup of the bill, which includes $560 million in special federal
payments for the District of Columbia.
On July 20, 2004, the House considered and passed H.R. 4850, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005. The measure was accompanied by
H.Rept. 108-610. On September 21, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported
S. 2826, its version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005. The
measure was accompanied by S.Rept. 108-354, and includes $560 million in special
federal payments to the city. On October 6, 2004, the House and Senate passed the
conference committee version of H.R. 4850.
On October 18, 2004, the President signed P.L. 108-335, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005. The act includes $560 million in special
federal payments and approves the District’s $6.3 billion operating budget for
FY2005. On December 8, 2004, the President signed P. L. 108-447, a consolidated
appropriations act for FY2005, which includes a provision amending charter school-
related language included in P.L. 108-335. This report will be updated as events
warrant.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Budget Request...................................................1
FY2005: The President’s Budget Request...........................1
FY2005: District’s Budget Request................................2
FY2005: Section 302(b) Suballocation.............................2
Congressional Action on the Budget...............................3
House Version of H.R. 4850.................................3
House Bill General Provisions................................3
Senate Version of H.R. 4850 (Formerly S. 2826).................4
Senate Bill General Provision................................5
Conference Version of H.R. 4850, P.L. 108-335..................5
Conference General Provisions...............................6
General Provision Amendments Included in P.L. 108-447..........7
Key Policy Issues.................................................18
Needle Exchange.............................................18
Medical Marijuana............................................19
Abortion Provision............................................21
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic Partners Program)......22
Gun Control Repeal...........................................23
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2005,
P.L. 108-335..................................................1
Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments Funds:
FY2005 Appropriations.........................................9
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds...........................17

Appropriations for FY2005:
District of Columbia
Most Recent Developments
On December 8, 2004, the President signed P.L. 108-447, a consolidated
appropriations act for FY2005. The act includes a provision amending charter
school-related language included in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY2005, P.L. 108-335, which was signed by the President on October 18, 2004. P.L.
108-335 includes $560 million in special federal payments and approves the
District’s $6.3 billion operating budget for FY2005. On October 6, 2004, by
unanimous consent the Senate approved the conference committee version of H.R.
4850, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005. The House passed
the act by a vote of 377 to 36 on the same day. On September 22, 2004, the full
Senate passed by voice vote the Senate version of H.R. 4850 after substituting the
language of S. 2826. On July 20, 2004, the House approved H.R. 4850 by a vote of
371-54. On September 7, 2004, the President transmitted to Congress the District of
Columbia budget request for FY2005, which was approved on May 14, 2004, by the
District of Columbia City Council following extensive negotiations with the mayor
over proposed budget cuts.
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2005, P.L. 108-335
^Com^mⁱ^{ttee M}^a^rk^up^Hou^s^e^Hou^s^e^Sena^t^e^Sena^t^e^Co^nf.^Co^{nf. Repo}^rt^Appro^v^e^d^Public
^Repo^rt^Pas^s^age^Repo^rt^Pas^s^age^Repo^rt^La^w
^H^o^use^S^ena^t^e^H^o^u^se^Sena^t^e
^7/^20/⁰⁴^7/^20/⁰⁴^9/^21/⁰⁴^9/^22/⁰⁴^10/^5/⁰⁴^10/^6/⁰⁴^10/^6/⁰⁴^10/^18/⁰⁴
^7/^14/⁰⁴^9/^21/⁰⁴^H.R^e^p^t^.^(371-⁵⁴⁾^S.Rep^t^.^voⁱ^c^e^vo^t^e^H.R^e^p^t^.^(377-³⁶⁾^unaⁿⁱ^m^o^us^P.L^.^108-
^108-⁶¹⁰^108-³⁵⁴^108-⁷³⁴^con^s^en^t³³⁵
Budget Request
FY2005: The President’s Budget Request
On February 2, 2004, the Bush Administration released its FY2005 budget
recommendations. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $560.4 million
in federal payments to the District of Columbia.¹ A major portion of the President’s
proposed federal payments and assistance to the District involves the courts and

¹ U.S. Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005
Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 1101-1102 and 1104-1115.

criminal justice system. This includes $187.5 million for the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, an independent federal
agency that has assumed management responsibility for the District’s pretrial
services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions. In addition, the
Administration requests $228.1 million in support of court operations, and $41.5
million for Defender Services. These three functions (court operations, defender
services, and offender supervision) represent $457.1 million, or 81.6%, of the
President’s proposed $560.4 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia
(see Table 2).
FY2005: District’s Budget Request
On May 14, 2004, the District’s city council unanimously approved the city’s²
$8.2 billion budget for FY2005, and forwarded it to the President for review,
approval, and transmittal to the Congress.³ The proposed budget includes a request
for $1.03 billion in special federal payments. The city’s proposed operating budget
of $6.2 billion includes a $50 million cash reserve fund. In addition, the District’s
proposed budget would increase local funding for public education by $82.6 million,
while seeking $60.05 million in special federal payments for public schools ($13
million), charter schools ($13 million), school vouchers ($14 million), public school
safety and security ($15 million) and public school enhancement ($5.05 million)
activities. The proposed budget would also increase funding for general government
support by $132.4 million and human support services by $172.8 million.
The District has also requested $23 million for the District’s college tuition
assistance program, a proposed increase of $5 million above the federal
government’s FY2004 commitment.⁴ In addition, the District requested $165
million for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s capital fund. This
is $162 million more than appropriated in FY2004. The District has also requested
$102 million in special federal payments to support emergency preparedness
activities, including $80 million for bioterrorism preparedness, $15 million for
emergency planning and security, and $7 million for the unified communication
center for regional emergencies.
FY2005: Section 302(b) Suballocation
Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act requires that the House and
Senate pass a concurrent budget resolution establishing an aggregate spending ceiling
(budget authority and outlays) for each fiscal year. These ceilings are used by House

² The $8.2 billion includes $2 billion for Enterprise Fund activities and $6.2 billion for
general fund operating expenses.
³ Section 446 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization
Act, P.L.93-198, as amended in 1989, requires a budget approved by the mayor and city
council of the District of Columbia to be to submitted to the President for transmission to
the Congress.
⁴ See CRS Report RS20646, District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program, by Bonnie
Mangan.

and Senate appropriators as a blueprint for allocating funds. Section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires appropriations committees in the House
and Senate to subdivide their Section 302(a) allocation of budget authority and
outlays among the 13 appropriations subcommittees. The House Appropriations
Committee approved a Section 302(b) suballocation of $560 million in budget
authority for FY2005 for the District of Columbia — 54% of the amount requested
by the District. The Senate Appropriations Committee has also allocated $560
million in budget authority for the District of Columbia. It published its revised
Section 302(b) suballocations on September 14, 2004 (S.Rept. 108-338).
Congressional Action on the Budget
Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fund certain
activities but also reviews the District’s entire budget, including the expenditure of
local funds. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees must approve — and
may modify — the District’s budget. House and Senate versions of the District
budget are reconciled in a joint conference committee and must be agreed to by the
House and the Senate. After this final action, the District’s budget is forwarded to
the President, who can sign it into law or veto it.
House Version of H.R. 4850.On July 7, 2004, the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia conducted a markup of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005 and forwarded the bill to the full
Appropriations Committee for its consideration. On July 14, 2004, the House
Appropriations Committee ordered reported the unnumbered draft bill, which
included $560 million in special federal payments for the District of Columbia. The
bill was brought to the House floor for consideration and passage on July 20, 2004,
and was designated H.R. 4850. As passed by the House, H.R. 4850 recommended
$25.6 million for the city college tuition assistance program, an $8.6 million increase
above the program’s FY2004 funding level and $2.6 million more than originally
sought by the District. The increase was sought in order to cover rising tuition cost
and program expansion. The bill does not include funding for inauguration expenses,
but does recommend $40 million for public schools, charter schools, and school
vouchers. In addition, the bill includes $6 million for public school libraries.
House Bill General Provisions. The House version of the bill includes
several provisions that District officials want to eliminate or modify, including those
related to medical marijuana, abortion, and needle exchange. In previous years,
during consideration of past District of Columbia appropriation acts, city officials
have asked Congress to eliminate the provision banning the use of medical
marijuana. They have also sought to win congressional approval for the lifting of the
prohibition on the use of District funds for abortion services, and they have sought
to eliminate the provision prohibiting the use of federal or District funds in support
of a needle exchange program. Congress has maintained the restrictions and
prohibitions on the use of federal and District funds for medical marijuana, abortion,
and needle exchange.
At the urging of the chairman of the District Appropriations Subcommittee,
Representative Frelinghuysen, the draft legislation, which was approved by the
House Appropriations Committee on July 14, 2004, did not include any new riders.

During the appropriations committee markup of the bill, Representative Fattah
introduced, then withdrew, an amendment that would have transferred to public
charter schools the unused portion of the $14 million Congress appropriated in
FY2004 for the school voucher program, which provides up to $7,500 in scholarships
to low-income students in underperforming public schools to assist them in covering
the cost of private elementary and secondary schools. In addition, Representative
Moran of Virginia asked that language be included in the report accompanying the
bill urging the court system to ensure prompt payment of court-appointed attorneys.
During consideration of the bill, Representative Moran noted that at least $1.5
million is owed to approximately 30 court-appointed attorneys. He also noted that
delayed payments to court-appointed attorneys had been an issue that Congress had
addressed during consideration and passage of District appropriation acts for
previous years.⁵ The Committee did approve an amendment to the report
accompanying the bill praising the DC Streets Partnership. The report language,
which was offered by Representative Culberson, noted the successful use of
performance-based contracting in the management of the 75 miles of the National
Highway System in the District of Columbia by a private contractor.⁶
On July 20, 2004, the House considered and approved the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2005, H.R. 4850. Before approving the bill and its
accompanying report (H.Rept. 108-610), the House considered two amendments to
the bill. Representative Tancredo introduced, then withdrew, an amendment
prohibiting non-citizens from voting in District elections. The amendment was
withdrawn after Representative Tancredo received assurances from Representative
Davis that any action by District officials allowing non-citizens to vote in District
elections would be blocked by the House Committee on Government Reform, a
committee he chairs. A second amendment was offered by Representative Hefley.
The amendment, which was defeated, called for a 1% ($5.6 million) cut in the
District’s FY2005 appropriations as part of a deficit reduction strategy. For a
detailed review of the general provisions included in the House bill, H.R. 4850, see
CRS Report RL32510, District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005:
Comparison of the General Provisions of P.L. 108-199 and H.R. 4850, by Eugene
Boyd.
Senate Version of H.R. 4850 (Formerly S. 2826). On September 21,
2004, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2826, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005. One day later, the full Senate
unanimously approved the bill by voice vote after striking the language of House
version of H.R. 4850 and substituting the language of S. 2826. The Senate bill,

⁵ For instance, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, P.L. 108-7,
requires the DC Court of Appeals to make payment to counsels representing indigent
persons, and children in neglect and abuse cases, within 45 days of receiving a payment
voucher. Failure to make payment within the 45-day period requires the DC Court of
Appeals to pay interest to the court-appointed attorney. The provision covers claims
received during FY2003 and any subsequent year.
⁶ The DC Streets Partnership is a collaboration between the National Highway
Administration, the District of Columbia Department of Transportation, and a private
contractor.

which was accompanied by S.Rept. 108-354, would have appropriated $560 million
in special federal payments to the District in support of a number of activities and
policies. As passed by the Senate, the bill recommended $21.1 million for the city
college tuition assistance program, a $4.1 million increase above the program’s
FY2004 funding level, and $4.5 million less than approved by the House. The
increase was sought in order to cover rising tuition cost and program expansion.
However, during committee consideration of the bill, Senator Durbin noted that the
program has $9 million in unspent funds from FY2004. He argued that the city
should provide a $1 match in local funds for every $2 in federal assistance.
According to Delegate Norton, the District retained the $9 million to ensure that
funds were available for the fall and winter semesters.
Like its House counterpart, the bill did not include funding for inauguration
expenses, but did recommend $40 million for public schools, charter schools, and
school vouchers. The Senate bill, unlike the House bill, sets aside a pool of funds
for high-performing public ($5 million) and charter ($2 million) schools. In addition,
the bill would have appropriated $195 million for court operations. This is $7.1
million less than recommended by the House and $33 million less than requested by
the city and the Administration. The bill would also have appropriated $32.5 million
to the District’s Chief Financial Office, acting as a pass-through agent, for allocation
to various education, security, economic development, and health initiatives. This
is $13.5 million more than recommended by the House. In past appropriations
measures funds allocated to the CFO have been earmarked for allocation to specific
entities and activities. Neither the House nor the Senate bill identifies amounts to be
awarded to specific activities or entities. The report accompanying the Senate bill
does note its intent that some portion of the amount to be awarded to the CFO be
allocated to Children’s National Medical Center for new pediatric intensive care and
neonatal intensive care units.
Senate Bill General Provision. The Senate bill (formerly S. 2826), as
reported to and passed by the Senate, would maintain the restrictions and prohibitions
on the use of federal and District funds for medical marijuana and abortion, but lifts
the previous prohibition on the use of District funds for a needle exchange program.
The bill would also have allowed District funds to be used to administer the District’s
domestic partners health care benefits program. It would have continued to cap
attorney’s fees in cases brought against the District’s public school system under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In addition, the Senate version
of H.R. 4850 would have removed several prohibitions on the use of District funds
for lobbying and advocacy activities related to statehood and voting representation
in Congress for residents of the District of Columbia.
Conference Version of H.R. 4850, P.L. 108-335. On October 5, 2004,
House and Senate conferees reached agreement on H.R. 4850 and its accompanying
conference report (H.Rept. 108-734). The conference committee agreed to $560
million in federal special payments to the city and approved the city’s $8.2 billion
budget for FY2005. The $560 million in special federal payments is $19 million
more than appropriated in FY2004. Included in the $560 million in special federal
payments was $25.6 million for a college tuition assistance plan. This is $8.7 million
more than appropriated in FY2004. The majority (73.3%) of the $560 million is to
be allocated to criminal justice activities including $190 million for court operations,

$38.5 million for defender services, $180 million for court services and offender
supervision activities, and $1.3 million in support of the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Committee. In FY2004, these activities accounted for 68.6% of the
$541 million in special federal payments awarded to the city.
In addition, $40 million in special federal payments are allocated to public
schools ($13 million), public charter schools ($13 million), and a school choice
program ($14 million) that provides up to $7,500 in vouchers to low-income students
to cover tuition and related cost for private elementary and secondary schools.
Congress also earmarked an additional $10.6 million, made available through the
Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia (CFO), in support
of education and cultural enrichment programs for the District’s school-age children.
It also provided $25.6 million in special federal payments for the city’s college
tuition assistance program. These combined sums total $76.2 million in special
federal payments for elementary, secondary, and higher education programs and
activities including teacher training, tuition assistance, tutoring, mentoring, and
cultural enrichment programs.
Conference General Provisions. The conference version of H.R. 4850,
as reported and passed by the House maintains the restrictions and prohibitions on
the use of federal and District funds for medical marijuana, abortion, and a needle
exchange program. The act allows District, but not federal, funds to be used to
administer the District’s domestic partners health care benefits program. It continues
the $4,000 cap on attorney’s fees in cases brought against the District’s public school
system under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In addition,
the conference version of H.R. 4850 would retain several provisions included in the
House version of the act and the District’s FY2004 appropriations act prohibiting the
use of District and federal funds for lobbying and advocacy activities related to
statehood and voting representation in Congress for residents of the District of
Columbia with one exception. The conference version of H.R. 4850 would allow
District, but not federal, funds to be used for salaries, expenses, or other costs related
to statehood lobbying efforts associated with the offices of United States Senator or
United States Representative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia
Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979 (D.C. Law 3-171; D.C.
Official Code, sec. 1-123).
The conference version of H.R. 4850 also includes several charter school-related
provisions previously included in Senate version of the act. The provisions:
^!Allow the Office of Public Charter School Financing and Support
to use federal credit enhancement or direct loan funds to provide
lease guarantees for charter schools;
^!Amend the DC School Reform Act of 1995 to encourage public
schools and independent schools to convert to charter schools;
^!Allow for a one-year transition period for public school teachers
whose schools are converted to charter schools;

^!Allow public schools that covert to charter schools to retain
occupancy of the facility after converting to a charter school;
^!Give charter schools preference in the acquisition of surplus school
facilities;
^!Allow for a 25-year lease period for city-owned property leased to
charter schools;
^!Require the city charter schools chartering authority to include an
annual report to Congress;
^!Call for a biennial evaluation by GAO of charter schools, identifying
nine evaluation criteria, with the first interim report due to be
submitted to Congress, the mayor, the council and the CFO by May
1, 2005; and
^!Require the Charter School Board to maintain its accounts according
to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for Not-for-Profit
Organizations; the board must contract for an audit of its financial
statement by an independent certified public accountant.
General Provision Amendments Included in P.L. 108-447. On
December 8, 2004, the President signed a consolidated appropriations act, P.L. 108-
447. The act includes a provision, Section 103, Title I, Division I, amending the
District’s capital budget and several charter school-related general provisions
included in P.L. 108-335. The act would amend the following general provisions:
^!Section 340. Public Charter School Financing. The proposed
provision is a technical amendment that clarifies the language of the
original Section 340(a) of P.L. 108-335. It amends Section
603(e)(3)(E) of the Student Loan Marketing Association
Reorganization Act (20 U.S.C. 1155(e)(3)(E)) by adding a new
subclause (IV) allowing public charter schools to obtain lease
guarantees in accordance with rules developed by the District of
Columbia Office of Public Charter School Financing.
^!Section 342. Repeal of Section 342 and Restoration of Previous
Provisions. This provision restores the language of the affected
sections as if they had not been amended by Section 342 of P.L. 108-
335. Eliminating subsection (a) restores the requirement that
petitions seeking the conversion of a public school to a public
charter school submit to the authorizing board the signatures of two-
thirds of the parents of minors attending the public school, two-
thirds of the adults attending a public school (the provision does not
provide a definition of adult school, but it is assumed to be students
18-years or older), and two-thirds of the teachers of the public
school in support such a conversion. Eliminating subsection (b)
repeals the provision governing the retention of teachers at converted

charter schools and brings such teachers under an existing provision
that allows all public school teachers to take a two-year leave of
absence without pay to teach at public charter schools. The two-year
leave of absence can be indefinitely extended for two-year periods.
Eliminating subsection (c) gives public charter schools the right of
first offer, but not first preference, in leasing or purchasing former
and current schools facilities. It keeps in place a provision that
former public school facilities may only be conveyed for conversion
to public charter schools if doing so does not result in significant
revenue loss to the city that would have been obtained from other
dispositions or uses of the facility or property.
^!Section 347. Charter School Board Operations. Amends District of
Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (D.C. Code 38-1802.14).
Subsection (f) requires the Charter School Board to maintain its
accounts according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for
Not-for-Profit Organizations. The board must contract for an audit
of its financial statement by an independent certified public
accountant. Findings are to be forwarded to the CFO, the mayor, the
council, and appropriate congressional committees. Subsection (h)
grants the Public Charter School Board authority to solicit, award,
and execute contracts independently of the Office of Contracting and
Procurement and the Chief Procurement Officer. Nothing under
Chapter 3 of Title 2 of the District Code governing Procurement
Practices for the District government shall affect the authority of the
Board under subsection (h).

Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments Funds:
FY2005 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ci^ty’s^Hou^s^e
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Admⁱ^n.^B^udg^et^Com^t^.^S^enate^Conf.
^Resid^eⁿ^t^T^u^itioⁿ^P^r^o^g^r^a^m¹⁶^.⁹⁰⁰¹⁷^.⁰⁰⁰²³^.⁰⁰⁰²⁵^.⁶⁰⁰²¹^.²⁰⁰²⁵^.⁶⁰⁰
^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^Pl^anⁿⁱⁿ^g^an^{d S}^ecu^ri^t^y^10.935^15.000^15.000^15.000^15.000^15.000
^Iⁿ^a^ugur^a^l^E^x^p^e^nse^s^—^—¹⁰^.⁰⁰⁰^—^—^—
^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^P^e^r^s^o^nne^l^c^r^o^ss-t^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^ng⁰^.⁴⁹⁷^—^—^—^—^—
^Ho^sp^{ital B}ⁱ^o^t^erro^rism^P^r^ep^aredⁿ^e^ss⁷^.⁴⁵⁶^—^—^—^—^—
^{— Ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^’^{s Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Med}ⁱ^cal^[3.728]^—^—^—^—^—
^Cen^t^er^d^ecoⁿ^t^amⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^f^acility
^{— Was}^h^{. Hos}^p^{. C}^eⁿ^t^er^[3.728]^—^—^—^—^—
^d^ecoⁿ^t^amⁱⁿ^atioⁿ^f^acility
^D^.^C^.^C^o^u^r^t^s^O^p^eratⁱ^oⁿ^166.810^228.069^228.069^202.110^195.010^190.800
^—^C^o^u^r^t^of^A^ppeal^s^[^8.748]^[8.952]^[8.952]^[8.952]^[8.952]^[8.952]
^—^S^u^peri^{or C}^o^u^r^t^[^82.908]^[84.^948]^[84.948]^[84.948]^[84.948]^[84.948]
^—^C^o^u^r^t^s^y^s^t^em^[39.764]^[40.699]^[40.699]^[40.699]^[40.699]^[40.699]
^—^C^a^pi^t^a^lⁱ^m^prov^em^en^t^s^[35.390]^[93.470]^[93.470]^[67.511]^[60.411]^[56.201]
^D^e^f^eⁿ^d^{er S}^e^rvⁱ^ces^35.390^41.500^41.500^41.500^34.500^38.500
^C^o^u^r^{t Serv}^ices^an^{d Of}^f^eⁿ^d^er^167.389^187.490^187.490^183.490^182.490^180.000
^Su^perv^is^ion^A^g^en^cy^f^o^{r th}^{e Dis}^t^{rict of}^a
^Co^lu^m^b^ia
^{— Co}^m^m^uⁿ^ity^Su^p^e^r^v^isioⁿ^an^d^[105.176]^[118.343]^[118.343]^[115.343]^[113.343]^[110.853]
^Se^{x O}^ffe^nd^e^r^Re^gi^st^r^y
^—^Pu^blⁱ^c^D^e^f^eⁿ^d^{er S}^e^rvⁱ^c^e^[^25.^051]^[29.833]^[29.833]^[28.833]^[29.833]^[29.833]
^—^Pret^ri^al^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce A}^g^en^cy^[37.179]^[39.314]^[39.314]^[39.314]^[39.314]^[39.314]
^Cr^imⁱⁿ^{al J}^u^{stice Co}^o^r^dⁱⁿ^a^tin^g^1.292^1.300^1.300^1.300^1.300^1.300
^Co^m^m^ittee
^Fed^e^r^a^{l W}^a^ter^an^d^Sew^e^r^A^u^th^o^r^ity^29.823^10.000^10.000^10.000^10.000^4.800
^Pa^y^m^eⁿ^t
^C^a^pi^t^a^l^Im^prov^em^en^t^s^—^—^3.700^—^—^—
^N^C^{RC U}ⁿ^d^e^r^s^e^r^ve^d^A^r^e^a^s⁽^S^ky^l^a^nd^—^—¹^.⁰⁰⁰^—^—^—
^S^h^oppiⁿ^g^C^eⁿ^t^er)
^Aⁿ^acos^{tia R}ⁱ^v^e^{r W}^a^lk^an^{d T}^r^ail^4.971^3.000^3.000^3.000^3.000^3.000
^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ
^C^hⁱ^l^d^S^u^pport^C^o^l^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^—^—^1.530^—^—^—
^{Fire an}^{d Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^{Medical Serv}^ices^—^10.000^10.000^—^—^—
^Dep^t^.
^C^a^pi^t^a^l^In^f^r^as^t^r^u^c^t^u^{re D}^e^v^e^l^op.^8.102^—^—^7.000^—^—
^—^Eas^t^ern^Mk^t^.^R^eⁿ^o^v^.^[0.149]^—^—^—^—^—

^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ci^ty’s^Hou^s^e
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Admⁱ^n.^B^udg^et^Com^t^.^S^enate^Conf.
^{— Un}^if^ied^Co^m^m^.^Cen^t^er^f^o^r^[7.953]^7.000^7.000^[7.000]^7.000^6.000
^Re^gi^oⁿ^a^l^E^m^e^r^ge^ncⁱ^e^{s a}ⁿ^d^o^t^he^r
^activ^ities
^Health^y^Fam^{ilies DC}^—^—⁰^.²⁵⁰^—^—^—
^Pu^blⁱ^c^S^c^h^ool^S^ecu^ri^t^y^—^—^15.000^—^—^—
^Pu^blⁱ^c^S^c^h^ool^Lⁱ^brary^Im^prov^.^—^—^—^6.000^—^6.000
^S^u^pport^f^o^{r Pu}^blⁱ^c^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^—^—^5.050^—^—^—
^—^C^a^pi^t^a^lⁱ^m^prov^em^en^t^s^—^—^[5.000]^—^—^—
^—^Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^Y^o^u^t^h^O^r^ch^.^—^—^[0.020]^—^—^—
^—^F^r^{ee Mi}ⁿ^d^s^Poet^ry^S^e^ri^es^—^—^[0.010]^—^—^—
^—^D^C^S^t^u^d^en^t^V^oⁱ^ces^—^—^[0.020]^—^—^—
^D^.^C^.^Pu^blⁱ^c^S^c^h^ool^s^/^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^39.764^40.000^40.000^40.000^40.000^40.000
^—^Pu^blⁱ^c^s^c^h^oolⁱ^m^prov^.^[^12.923]^[13.000]^[13.000]^[13.000]^[13.000]^[13.000]
^—^Hⁱ^g^h^Perf^ormⁱⁿ^g^S^c^h^ool^s^—^—^—^—^[5.000]^[2.000]
^—^T^r^an^s^f^orm^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^S^c^h^ool^s^—^—^—^—^[5.000]^[2.000]
^—^S^c^h^ool^G^r^an^t^s^an^d^—^—^—^—^[3.000]^[9.000]
^Mg^m^t/Coⁿ^su^{lt. Ser}^v^ices
^—^P^l^a^y^gr^o^und^Re^p^aⁱ^r^aⁿ^d^[4.473]^—^—^—^—^—
^Wⁱⁿ^dow^R^e^placem^en^t
^D^.^C^.^Pu^blⁱ^c^C^h^art^e^{r S}^c^h^ool^12.923^[13.000]^[13.000]^[13.000]^[13.000]^[13.000]
^{— C}^ity^B^u^{ild In}^itiativ^{e (n}^/h^ood-^—^—^—^—^[4.000]^[2.000]
^bas^e^{d ch}^art^e^{r s}^c^h^ool^s⁾
^—^Dⁱ^rect^L^o^an^F^uⁿ^d^—^—^—^—^[2.750]^[2.750]
^—^A^d^mⁱ^n.^E^x^p^e^nse^s^fo^r^—^—^—^—^[0.150]^[0.150]
^Ou^treach
^—^C^h^art^e^{r S}^c^h^ool^In^cu^bat^o^r^—^—^—^—^[4.000]^[4.000]
^—^Hⁱ^g^h^Perf^ormⁱⁿ^g^S^c^h^ool^s^—^—^—^—^[2.000]^[2.000]
^—^Pu^blⁱ^c^C^h^art^e^{r S}^c^h^ool^A^s^s^o^c.^—^—^—^—^[0.100]^[0.100]
^{— P}^u^b^{lic Ch}^ar^ter^Sch^o^o^l^—^—^—^—^[0.100]^[2.100]
^C^o^lleg^e^P^r^eparatory^P^r^og^ram
^S^c^h^ool^C^h^oi^{ce S}^c^h^o^l^a^rs^hⁱ^{p Prog}^ram^12.923^[14.000]^[14.000]^[14.000]^[13.000]^[13.000]
^(v^ou^ch^ers⁾
^—^admⁱⁿ^.^ex^pen^.^/^a^s^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^[^0.994]^—^—^—^[1.000]^[1.000]
^F^a^mⁱ^l^y^Lⁱ^t^e^racy^Prog^ram¹^.988^—^5.000^1.000^—^1.000
^Ch^ild^ren^A^ssistan^{ce P}^r^o^g^ram^—^—⁰^.⁸⁵⁰^—^—^—
^{— Ro}^vⁱⁿ^g^L^ead^{ers P}^r^o^g^ram^—^—⁰^.⁵⁰⁰^—^—^—
^{— Head}^{s Up}^—^—⁰^.¹⁵⁰^—^—^—
^—^B^a^l^l^o^{u H}ⁱ^{gh Sc}^ho^o^l^—^—⁰^.²⁰⁰^—^—^—

^L^ead^er^sh^ip^Iⁿ^itiativ^e

^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ci^ty’s^Hou^s^e
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Admⁱ^n.^B^udg^et^Com^t^.^S^enate^Conf.
^T^r^an^s^port^a^tⁱ^oⁿ³^.479^—^167.700^—^5.000^2.5000
^—^WMA^T^A^C^a^pi^t^a^l^F^uⁿ^d^[2.982]^—^165.700^—^[4.000]^[1.500]
^—^D^o^wⁿ^t^o^wⁿ^Cⁱ^rcu^l^at^or^[0.497]^—^2.000^—^[1.000]^[1.000]
^Bⁱ^oterroris^m^P^r^eparedn^e^s^s^/^Foren^s^ics^—^—^80.000^—^8.000^8.000
^L^a^b.(C^hⁱ^ef^{Med. Ex}^amⁱⁿ^{er Of}^fⁱ^ce)
^F^o^s^t^{er C}^a^{re Im}^prov^em^en^t^s^13.917^—^—^5.000^5.000^5.000
^—^C^hⁱ^l^d^an^{d F}^a^m^.^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^[8.947]^—^—^—^[3.250]^[3.250]
^—^Earl^yⁱⁿ^t^e^rv^en^tⁱ^oⁿ^uⁿⁱ^t^[^1.988]^—^—^—^[2.000]^[2.000]
^—^Em^{er. s}^u^pport^f^uⁿ^d^[0.994]^—^—^—^[0.750]^[0.750]
^—^S^o^{. w}^o^rk^{er l}^o^an^repay^.^[2.982]^—^—^—^—^—
^—^C^o^m^p^u^t^{er u}^p^g^r^ades^[2.982]^—^—^—^[0.500]^[0.500]
^—^Men^t^al^H^eal^t^h^A^s^s^e^s^s^m^t^s^.^[^3.877]^—^—^—^[1.250]^[1.250]
^{— CO}^G^’^{s Re}^sp^ite^Ca^r^e^aⁿ^d^[0.994]^—^—^—^[0.500]^[0.500]
^R^ecru^itm^en^t
^C^F^O^32.159^—^—^19.000^32.500^32.500
^—^au^di^t^of^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^reci^pi^en^t^s^0.199^—^—^—^—^[0.100]
^EDUC^A^T^ION/C^U^L^T^UR^A^L^/C^IVIC^R^E^SP^ONSIB^IL^IT^{Y P}^R^OGR^A^M^S
^{— A}^m^er^{. Cities Fo}^uⁿ^d^atioⁿ^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^—
^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n Cl}^e^a^rⁱ^ngho^use
^{— A}^s^ian^A^m^{er. Edu}^cation^an^d^[0.099]^—^—^—^—^—
^{Social P}^r^og^ram^s
^{— A}^s^piⁿ^C^t^{r. f}^o^{r Gov}^t^{. C}^o^m^.^[0.149]^—^—^—^—^—
^Serv^{. an}^{d Ou}^treach^P^r^og^ram^s
^—^Back^t^o^S^c^h^ool^—^—^—^—^—^[0.100]
^{— B}^aⁿⁿ^e^k^e^r^Iⁿ^stitu^{te f}^o^r^Sci.^[0.348]^—^—^—^—^—
^an^{d T}^ech^.
^—^B^e^st^Frⁱ^e^nd^{s Fo}^und^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^[0.250]
^Y^o^ut^{h D}^e^ve^l^o^p^m^eⁿ^t
^{— B}^u^ildⁱⁿ^g^B^r^id^g^e^{s A}^c^r^o^{ss th}^e^—^—^—^—^—^[0.300]
^Rⁱ^v^e^{r (tow}ⁿ^h^a^{ll an}^{d arts}^cen^ter)
^{— Ca}^lva^r^y^B^ilingua^{l M}^u^lti-^—^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^c^u^l^t^u^r^a^l^Le^a^rⁿⁱ^{ng Ce}^nt^e^r
^{— Cap}^{ital City}^Car^eer^{s Fed}^.^—^—^—^—^—^[0.200]
^In^du^s^t^ry^A^cadem^ies
^{— Cap}^{ital Hill Clu}^s^ter^Sch^o^o^l^—^—^—^—^—^[0.300]
⁽^p^u^b^{lic sch}^o^o^l^coⁿ^s^o^r^tiu^m⁾
^{— C}^a^ribbean^A^m^{er. Mis}^sⁱ^on^f^o^r^[0.248]^—^—^—^—^[0.350]
^Edu^.^R^e^s^earch^(h^ig^h^e^{r edu}⁾
^{— Cataly}^{st (}^J^ef^f^e^r^s^oⁿ^Hig^h^—^—^—^—^—^[0.200]

^Sch^.^T^each^{er Feeder prog}^ram⁾

^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ci^ty’s^Hou^s^e
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Admⁱ^n.^B^udg^et^Com^t^.^S^enate^Conf.
^{— C}^eⁿ^t^{er f}^o^{r In}^s^p^{ired T}^eachⁱⁿ^g^—^—^—^—^—^[0.150]
^—^Chur^c^h^o^f^t^h^e^E^pⁱ^p^ha^ny^—^—^—^—^—^[0.150]
^S^u^pport^O^u^{r S}^c^h^ool^s^Prog^ram
^—^Cⁱ^t^y^Mu^s^e^u^m^[0.746]^—^—^—^—^—
^{— C}^ity^Year’^s^R^eadin^g^f^o^r^—^—^—^—^—^[0.100]
^Su^ccess/liter^acy
^—^Co^m^m^.^Y^o^ut^{h Co}^nne^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^[0.348]^—^—^—^—^—
^A^ssist.^to^L^o^w^Iⁿ^c^o^m^e^Child^r^eⁿ
^—^C^o^uⁿ^cⁱ^l^f^o^{r C}^o^u^r^t^Ex^cel^l^eⁿ^c^e^—^—^—^—^—^[0.200]
^{— Dan}^{ce In}^s^titu^{te of}^W^a^s^h^.^—^—^—^—^—^[0.150]
^{— DC}^P^u^{blic L}ⁱ^braries^com^p^u^t^er^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^—
^an^{d in}^tern^{et acces}^s
^{— Dis}^c^ov^ery^C^r^eek^C^h^ildren^’^s^[0.497]^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^Mu^s^e^u^m
^{— Ed}^{. A}^d^v^.^A^llian^{ce f}^o^r^Yo^u^t^h^[0.049]^—^—^—^—^[0.250]
^Ci^vi^c^E^nga^ge^m^e^nt
^—^E^d^uc^a^tⁱ^o^{n E}ⁿ^rⁱ^c^h^m^e^nt^E^q^ui^ne^[0.348]^—^—^—^—^—
^Disco^v^ery
^—^Ev^ery^body^Wiⁿ^s^Men^t^oriⁿ^g^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^[0.150]
^Pr^og^r^a^m
^—^Fⁱ^rs^t^Book^Prog^ram^(N^atⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^—^—^—^—^—^[0.200]
^Book^Ban^k⁾
^{— Fr}^ien^d^{s in}^Ch^oⁱ^{ce in}^Ur^b^aⁿ^[0.348]^—^—^—^—^—
^S^c^h^ool^s^ch^art^e^{r s}^c^h^ool^dev^.
^—^F^o^uⁿ^d^atⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^{r S}^u^pport^of^—^—^—^—^—^[0.250]
^A^f^rican^A^m^erican^sⁱⁿ^Film
^—^Gⁱ^rl^S^c^ou^t^C^o^uⁿ^cⁱ^l^—^—^—^—^—^[0.700]
^{— Gon}^zag^{a C}^o^lleg^e^Hig^h^—^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^S^c^h^ool^capi^t^a^l^.^dev^e^l^opm^en^t
^{— In}^s^titu^{te f}^o^{r Ed. Equ}^ity^[0.746]^—^—^—^—^[0.250]
^{— I}ⁿ^terⁿ^atioⁿ^a^{l Yo}^u^t^h^Ser^v^ice^[0.149]^—^—^—^—^—
^aⁿ^d^D^e^v.^Co^r^p^s.^m^e^nt^o^rⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d
^h^o^tlin^e
^—^Jew^s^C^o^uⁿ^.^f^o^{r Pu}^{b. A}^f^f^aⁱ^r^s^—^—^—^—^—^[0.500]
^—^Kⁱ^dBi^z^{3000 readi}ⁿ^g^[0.149]^—^—^—^—^—
^c^o^m^p^r^e^he^nsi^oⁿ
^{— Kid}^s^Vo^tin^g^USA^citizen^sh^ip^[0.149]^—^—^—^—^—
^prog^ram^s
^—^Kⁱⁿ^g^s^m^aⁿ^C^h^art^e^{r S}^c^h^ool^—^—^—^—^—^[0.200]
^—^Le^vi^ne^Sc^ho^o^l^o^f^M^u^si^c^fo^r^[0.099]^—^—^—^—^—

^{DC Cha}^r^te^r^Sc^ho^o^l^{s M}^u^sic^E^d^.
^Pr^og^r^a^m

^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ci^ty’s^Hou^s^e
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Admⁱ^n.^B^udg^et^Com^t^.^S^enate^Conf.
^—^Lo^ve^o^f^Chi^l^d^r^e^n/^T^hur^go^o^d^—^—^—^—^—^[0.100]
^M^a^r^s^ha^l^l^Ct^r^.^Y^o^ut^{h T}^e^c^h^.^P^r^o^g^.
^{— Main}^Str^{eet A}^r^{ts I}ⁿ^itiativ^e^—^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^D^C^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^on^t^h^{e A}^r^t^s
^{— Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Cap}^{ital . Ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^’^s^[0.497]^—^—^—^—^[0.500]
^Mu^s^e^u^m
^{— Nat. Ch}^ild^{Res. Ctr}^.^Ear^l^y^[0.099]^—^—^—^—^—
^C^hⁱ^l^d^h^{ood Edu}^.^Prog^ram
^{— Nat. Hist. T}^r^u^s^{t L}ⁱⁿ^c^o^lⁿ^[1.193]^—^—^—^—^[1.000]
^Co^ttag^e^Resto^r^atioⁿ
^{— Nat. Mu}^sⁱ^{c C}^t^{r an}^{d Mu}^s^e^u^m^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^—
^Fo^und^.^p^e^r^f^o^r^mⁱ^ng/^vi^sua^l^a^r^t^sⁱⁿ
^pu^blⁱ^c^s^c^h^ool^s
^{— New}^L^eaders^f^o^{r New}^[0.248]^—^—^—^—^—
^S^c^h^ool^s^pu^blⁱ^c^an^{d ch}^art^e^r
^s^c^h^ool^s^f^e^l^l^o^w^s^partⁿ^e^rs^hⁱ^p
^—^Perry^S^c^h^ool^C^o^m^m^.^S^e^rv^.^—^—^—^—^—^[0.150]
^—^P^h^e^l^p^s^-St^o^ke^{s Fund}^P^u^b^lⁱ^c^[0.248]^—^—^—^—^—
^Sch^ools^T^each^ers^W^o^rk^s^h^ops
^{— R}^ecordin^g^s^f^o^{r th}^{e B}^lin^{d an}^d^[0.348]^—^—^—^—^—
^Dy^s^l^ex^{ic Serv}^ices^trainⁱⁿ^g^f^o^r
^pu^blⁱ^c^s^c^h^ool^s
^—^R^eadN^e^t^F^o^uⁿ^d^atⁱ^oⁿ^—^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^—^Se^e^Fo^r^e^ve^r^Fo^und^a^tⁱ^o^{n i}ⁿ^—^—^—^—^—^[0.250]
^s^u^pport^of^{M. A}ⁿ^g^e^l^o^u^C^h^art^e^r
^S^c^h^ool^af^t^e^{r s}^c^h^ool^prog^ram
^—^Se^e^d^Fo^und^a^tⁱ^o^{n ur}^b^aⁿ^—^—^—^—^—^[0.150]
^boardiⁿ^g^s^c^h^ool^m^odel
^{— Sh}^ak^es^{peare T}^h^eater^[0.994]^—^—^—^—^[0.900]
^Coⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^o^fⁿ^e^w^f^acility
^{— Sh}^ak^es^{peare T}^h^{eater P}^u^blic^[0.124]^—^—^—^—^—
^Sch^{ool Ed. Ou}^treach
^—^S^T^EED^Y^o^u^t^h^Edu^.^an^{d R}^ec.^—^—^—^—^—^[0.350]
^{— SURE Fo}^uⁿ^d^atioⁿ⁽^lib^r^a^r^y^—^—^—^—^—^[0.100]
^an^{d com}^m^uⁿ^ity^res^o^u^r^ces
^{— So}^u^t^h^{east Un}^iv^.^[0.149].^—^—^—^—^[0.450]
^E^-^Le^a^rⁿⁱ^{ng p}^r^o^g^r^a^m
^{— T}^each^f^o^{r A}^m^{erica, DC}^—^—^—^—^—^[0.200]
^{— T}^each^{er A}^d^v^aⁿ^cem^en^{t P}^r^og^.^—^—^—^—^—^[0.200]
^—³^D^o^c^t^o^r^{s Fo}^und^.^Hⁱ^gh^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^—
^Sch^{ool lectu}^r^{e s}^e^ries
^{— Valu}^{es Fir}^s^{t p}^u^b^{lic sch}^o^o^l^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^[0.250]

^t^r^aⁱⁿⁱ^{ng p}^r^o^g^r^a^m

^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ci^ty’s^Hou^s^e
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Admⁱ^n.^B^udg^et^Com^t^.^S^enate^Conf.
^—^V^o^y^a^ge^r^E^x^p^a^nd^e^d^Le^a^rⁿⁱ^ng^[1.044]^—^—^—^—^—
^L^iter^acy
^—^W^a^shi^ngt^oⁿ^A^r^e^a^W^o^m^e^n’s^—^—^—^—^—^[1.000]
^Fo^und^a^tⁱ^o^{n (}^p^hi^l^a^nt^hr^o^p^y⁾
^{— W}^a^shⁱⁿ^g^t^oⁿ^B^a^{llet A}ⁿ^aco^stia^[0.099]^—^—^—^—^—
^dan^{ce s}^t^u^d^io
^—^Was^h^{. O}^p^{era Edu}^catⁱ^oⁿ^[^0.497]^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^—^Worl^{d V}ⁱ^sⁱ^on^Kⁱ^dsⁱⁿ^N^eed^—^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^C^o^m^m^uⁿⁱ^t^y^S^t^oreh^ou^s^e
^—^Y^o^ut^{h Le}^a^d^e^r^shi^p^Fo^und^.^[0.099]^—^—^—^—^—
^ch^{aracter bu}^ildin^g^prog^ram^s
^EC^ONOMIC^DEVEL^O^P^M^ENT^,^INFR^A^S^T^R^UC^T^U^R^E^{, HOUSING}
^{— A}^c^tiv^{e Cap}^Aⁿ^aco^{stia Riv}^e^r^[0.497]^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^Cl^e^a^nup
^—^A^c^c^e^{ss H}^o^usi^{ng Re}^no^v.^o^f^SE^[0.994]^—^—^—^—^—
^{Vet. Serv}^{. C}^eⁿ^t^er
^—^Barrack^R^o^w^Maiⁿ^S^t^reet^[0.994]^—^—^—^—^[0.500]
^—^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^C^e^m^e^t^e^ry^[0.099]^—^—^—
^—^Eas^t^ern^Mark^et^R^eⁿ^o^v^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^—^—^—^—^—^[0.250]
^—^T^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e D}^C^In^c.^[0.448]^—^—^—^—^—
^{— Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Co}^m^p^o^s^{ite Cen}^t^er^—^—^—^—^—^[1.000]
^(bridg^{e replacem}^en^t)
^—^Oⁿ^{e Econ}^./^Dⁱ^gⁱ^t^a^l^In^cl^u^sⁱ^oⁿ^—^—^—^—^—^[0.100]
^—^W^a^sh.^Co^G^H^o^usi^{ng T}^r^ust^[0.348]^—^—^—^—^—
^Fund
^HEA^L^T^H^A^{ND SOC}^I^A^L^SER^V^IC^ES
^{— A}^{ll Faith}^Coⁿ^s^o^r^tiu^m^—^—^—^—^—^[0.200]
^(s^u^b^s^t^an^{ce abu}^s^e)
^{— A}^R^I^S^{E lif}^{e sk}^{ills f}^o^r^at-^r^isk^[0.248]^—^—^—^—^[0.300]
^yo^u^t^h
^—^C^a^pi^t^a^l^A^r^{ea F}^{ood Ban}^k^—^—^—^—^—^[0.300]
^—^C^eⁿ^t^{er f}^o^{r Men}^t^al^H^eal^t^h^[0.746]^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^—^C^h^es^apeak^{e V}^e^t^e^ran^H^o^s^p^.^—^—^—^—^—^[0.250]
^—^C^hⁱ^l^d^ren^’^s^H^eal^t^h^F^uⁿ^d^/^v^an^—^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^{— Ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^’^{s Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Med}ⁱ^cal^[4.971]^—^—^—^—^[5.000]
^C^eⁿ^t^{er capital im}^prov^em^en^ts
^{— Ch}^ild^r^eⁿ^’^{s Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Med}ⁱ^cal^—^—^—^—^—^[0.400]
^Cen^t^er^cap^{ital d}^e^v^.^lab^.
^—^C^oⁿ^g^.^G^l^au^com^a^C^a^u^c^u^s^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^—
^—^D^C^Poi^s^on^C^oⁿ^t^rol^C^eⁿ^t^er^—^—^—^—^—^[0.450]

^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ci^ty’s^Hou^s^e
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Admⁱ^n.^B^udg^et^Com^t^.^S^enate^Conf.
^—^G^o^s^p^el^R^e^s^c^u^e^Miⁿⁱ^s^t^ri^es^[0.497]^—^—^—^—^[0.300]
^{— Gr}^e^eⁿ^Do^o^r⁽^a^{ssist r}^e^sid^e^nts^[0.597]^—^—^—^—^—
^w^/^m^eⁿ^t^{al illn}^ess)
^{— L}^a^tin^A^m^{er. You}^t^h^C^t^r.^[0.099]^—^—^—^—^[0.100]
^Hom^e^f^o^{r T}^een^ag^{e Girls}
^{— Nat’}^{l Cam}^p^{. to}^P^r^ev^en^{t T}^een^—^—^—^—^—^[0.300]
^P^r^e^gna^nc^y^.^/^U^h^lⁱ^c^{h Chi}^l^d^r^e^n’s
^A^d^va^nt^a^g^e^N^e^t^w^o^r^k
^—^N^a^t^.^R^e^h^a^{b. H}^o^s^pⁱ^t^a^l^[^0.497]^—^—^—^—^—
^{— St. Co}^{letta co}ⁿ^s^tr^u^c^tioⁿ^to^[1.988]^—^—^—^—^[2.000]
^f^{acilities f}^o^r^ser^v^{ices to}^m^eⁿ^t^ally
^r^e^tar^d^ed^an^d^m^u^lti-^h^aⁿ^d^icap^p^e^d
^—^T^a^rg^et^{ed A}^b^s^tⁱⁿ^en^ce^[0.348]^—^—^—^—^—
^{— T}^een^C^oⁿⁿ^ection^(teen^—^—^—^—^—^[0.900]
^p^r^e^gna^nc^y^p^r^e^v^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ⁾
^—^Uⁿⁱ^t^y^H^eal^t^h^C^a^re^—^—^—^—^—^[0.650]
^—^Whⁱ^t^m^an^Wal^k^{er C}^lⁱⁿⁱ^c^[0.746]^—^—^—^—^[0.600]
^—^W^o^m^e^{n’s Ce}^nt^e^r^Fa^mⁱ^l^y^[0.845]^—^—^—^—^[0.850]
^St^r^e^ngt^heⁿⁱ^{ng P}^r^o^g^r^a^m
^P^U^B^L^I^C^SA^FE^T^Y
^—^C^o^u^r^t^A^ppoiⁿ^t^{ed S}^p^eci^al^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^[0.300]
^A^d^v^o^{cate Fam}^.^C^t^{. Serv}^ices
^—^Eⁱ^se^nho^w^e^r^Fo^und^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^[0.348]^—^—^—^—^—
^Carv^{er T}^e^{rrace In}^itiativ^e
^{— Nation}^a^{l C}^h^ildren^’^s^A^llian^c^e^—^—^—^—^—^[0.500]
^{— P}^o^larⁱ^{s P}^r^o^j^{ect f}^o^r^vⁱ^ctim^{s o}^f^[0.074]^—^—^—^—^[0.120]
^traf^fⁱ^ckⁱⁿ^g^(DC^T^a^s^k^Force)
^{— P}^u^b^{lic Saf}^e^ty^Situ^atioⁿ^[0.497]^—^—^—^—^—
^A^w^aren^es^s^Sy^s^t^em^s^deploy^.
^{— Saf}^e^Sh^ores^A^d^v^o^cacy^C^t^r.^[0.149]^—^—^—^—^—
^f^o^{r abu}^s^{ed ch}^ildren
^{— Saf}^e^Kid^s^Co^alitioⁿ^ch^ild^[0.249]^—^—^—^—^[0.300]
^s^a^f^e^t^y^an^{d s}^eat^bel^t^prog^ram
^{— Volu}ⁿ^t^eers^f^o^{r A}^b^u^s^{ed an}^d^—^—^—^—^—^[0.100]
^Neg^l^{ected C}^h^ildren
^J^O^B^T^R^A^I^NING
^—^A^m^{er. C}^o^m^m^.^Partⁿ^e^rs^hⁱ^p^—^—^—^—^—^[0.100]
^{— Ex}^{cel I}ⁿ^stitu^{te &}^Natioⁿ^a^l^[0.746]^—^—^—^—^—
^Ce^nt^e^r^fo^r^M^a^nufa^c^t^urⁱⁿ^g
^Scien^ces^J^{ob T}^r^ainⁱⁿ^g
^{— Natio}ⁿ^a^{l Cen}^t^er^f^o^r^[0.400]

^M^a^nufa^c^t^urⁱ^{ng Sc}ⁱ^e^nc^e^s

^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Ena^c^t^e^d^Ci^ty’s^Hou^s^e
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Admⁱ^n.^B^udg^et^Com^t^.^S^enate^Conf.
^{— Secon}^d^C^h^an^{ce Em}^ploy^.^[0.497]^—^—^—^—^[0.450]
^S^e^rvⁱ^{ce f}^o^{r Wom}^eⁿ
^—^S^T^R^I^V^E^/^j^{ob readi}ⁿ^es^s^[^0.100]
^RE^CRE^A^T^I^O^N
^{— Cap}^.^{l Hill A}^r^{ts W}^o^r^k^sh^o^p^[0.249]^—^—^—^—^[0.150]
^{cap. im}^prov^em^en^ts
^—^F^rⁱ^eⁿ^d^s^of^F^t^{. D}^u^pon^t^Ice^[0.199]^—^—^—^—^[0.080]
^A^r^en^{a C}^a^{pital Im}^prov^em^en^ts
^{— Old}^Nav^a^{l Ho}^sp^{ital Fo}^uⁿ^d^.^[1.491]^—^—^—^—^[0.700]
^Cap^.^{Hill Co}^m^m^uⁿ^ity^Cen^t^er
^T^o^tal^fed^eral^p^aym^en^ts^541.783^560.359^1,030.039^560.010^560.000^560.000

Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds
(in millions of dollars)
^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Dist^rict^H^o^{use Sena}^t^e^Co^nf^.
^Dⁱ^vⁱ^sⁱ^on^of^Ex^pen^s^es^:^Dⁱ^s^t^ri^ct^of^C^o^l^u^m^bⁱ^a^F^uⁿ^d^s
^GENER^A^L^FUND
^G^o^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^a^l^Dⁱ^r^e^c^tⁱ^o^{n a}ⁿ^d^284.415^416.823^416.823^416.069^416.069
^S^u^pport
^Econ^omⁱ^c^D^e^v^e^l^opm^en^t^an^d^276.647^334.745^334.745^334.745^334.745
^Re^gul^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^Pu^blⁱ^c^S^a^f^e^t^y^an^{d Ju}^s^tⁱ^c^e^745.958^798.722^798.722^798.723^797.423
^Pu^blⁱ^c^Edu^catⁱ^oⁿ^S^y^s^t^em^1,157.⁸⁴¹^1,240.423^1,240.423^1,266.424^1,266.424
^H^u^m^aⁿ^S^u^pport^S^e^rvⁱ^ces^2,360.067^2,532.925^2,532.925^2,533.825^2,533.825
^Pu^blⁱ^c^Work^s^327.046^331.936^331.936^331.936^331.936
^C^a^s^h^R^e^s^e^rv^{e F}^uⁿ^d^50.000^50.000^50.000^50.000^50.000
^R^e^pay^m^en^{t of}^L^o^an^s^an^d^311.504^347.700^347.700^347.700^347.700
^In^t^e^res^t
^Pay^m^en^t^of^In^t^e^res^t^on^S^h^ort^3.000^4.000^4.000^4.000^4.000
^T^e^rm^Borrowⁱⁿ^g
^On^{e J}^u^diciary^Squ^a^re^4.911^11.252^11.252^11.252^11.252
^Cer^tif^{icate o}^f^P^a^r^ticip^atioⁿ
^Settlem^eⁿ^t^{s an}^d^J^u^d^g^m^eⁿ^t^s²²^.⁵²²²⁰^.²⁷⁰²⁰^.²⁷⁰²⁰^.²⁷⁰²⁰^.²⁷⁰
^Wi^l^s^on^Buⁱ^l^dⁱⁿ^g³^.704^3.633^3.633^3.633^3.633
^Work^f^o^{rce In}^v^e^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^s^22.308^38.114^38.114^38.114^38.114
^N^oⁿ^-^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^al^A^g^en^cy^19.639^12.590^12.590^13.946^13.946
^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^P^l^aⁿⁿⁱ^{ng a}ⁿ^d^0.000^0.000^0.000^0.000^0.000
^Secu^rity^C^o^s^t^s
^O^l^{d C}^oⁿ^v^eⁿ^tⁱ^oⁿ^C^t^{r. D}^e^m^o^—^—^—^11.000^11.000
^T^a^x^In^crem^en^t^Fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱⁿ^g^1.940^9.710^9.710^9.710^9.710
^Equⁱ^pm^en^t^L^eas^e^0.000^23.109^23.109^—^23.109
^E^m^e^r^.^aⁿ^d^Co^ntⁱ^nge^nc^y^0.000^0.000^0.000^0.000^0.000
^Re^se^r^v^e^Fund
^Pay^-^A^s^-^Y^ou^-^G^{o C}^a^pi^t^a^l^11.267^6.531^6.531^6.531^6.531
^P^a^y^-^As-Y^o^u^-G^o^0.000^43.137^43.137^43.137^43.137
^Co^ntⁱ^nge^nc^y
^Re^p^a^y^m^eⁿ^t^G^e^n.^Fund^0.000^0.000^0.000^0.000^0.000
^R^ecov^e^ry^Debt
^Medi^cai^{d D}ⁱ^s^a^l^l^o^w^aⁿ^c^e^57.000^—^—^—^—
^Sch^o^larshⁱ^p^P^r^o^g^ram⁰^.0⁰⁰^—^—^—^—
^G^e^nera^{l F}^{und To}^t^a^l^5,659.769^6,225.620^6,225.⁶²⁰^6,241.015^6,264.124
^O^p^era^tⁱ^ng^Expenses
^ENT^E^R^P^R^I^{SE FUNDS}
^Wat^e^{r an}^{d S}^e^w^e^{r A}^u^t^h^.^259.059^275.289^275.289^287.206^287.206
^Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^A^q^u^e^du^ct^55.553^47.972^47.972^47.972^47.972
^Storm^w^{ater P}^e^rm^it^3.501^3.792^3.792^3.792^3.792
^Co^m^p^lian^ce
^L^o^tter^y^an^d^Ch^ar^itab^l^e^242.755^247.000^247.000^247.000^247.000

^Gam^e^s

^Ena^c^t^e^d^FY²⁰⁰⁵
^Program^s^FY²⁰⁰⁴^Dist^rict^H^o^{use Sena}^t^e^Co^nf^.
^S^port^s^an^{d En}^t^e^r.^13.979^7.322^7.322^7.322^7.322
^C^o^mmi^s^sⁱ^oⁿ
^D^C^R^e^tⁱ^r^em^en^t^Board^13.895^15.277^15.277^15.277^15.277
^Co^nve^ntⁱ^o^{n Ce}^nt^e^r^69.742^77.176^77.176^77.176^77.176
^En^t^e^rpri^s^e^F^uⁿ^d
^Natioⁿ^a^{l Cap}^ital^7.849^7.850^7.850^7.850^7.850
^Rev^italizatioⁿ^Co^r^p^o^r^atioⁿ
^Uⁿⁱ^v^{. D}ⁱ^s^t^ri^ct^of^C^o^l^u^m^bⁱ^a^0.000^85.102^85.102^85.102^85.102
^Uⁿ^em^pl^y^.^In^s^u^{r. T}^r^u^s^t^F^uⁿ^d^0.000^180.000^180.000^180.000^180.000
^O^t^h^e^{r Pos}^t^Em^pl^oy^ee^0.000^953.000^953.000^953.000^953.000
^B^e^ne^fi^t^s^T^r^ust^Fund
^D^C^Pu^blⁱ^c^Lⁱ^brary^T^r^u^s^t^0.000^17.000^17.000^17.000^17.000
^T^o^{tal E}ⁿ^terpris^e^Funds^666.333^1,916.780^1,916.780^1,928.697^1,928.697
^T^o^tal^Op^eratiⁿ^g^E^x^p^eⁿ^s^es^6,326.138^8,142.400^8,142.400^8,169.712^8,192.821
^C^A^P^I^T^A^L^OUT^L^A^YS
^G^eⁿ^e^ral^F^uⁿ^d^904.913^725.886^725.886^725.886^740.276
^Wat^e^{r an}^{d S}^e^w^e^{r F}^uⁿ^d^229.807^371.040^371.040^371.040^371.040
^T^o^tal^C^a^pⁱ^tal^Ou^tl^ays^1,134.720^1,096.926^1,096.926^1,096.926^1,111.316
^To^t^a^{l Dist}^rict^o^f^Co^lum^b^ia^7,460.858^9,339.326^9,339.³²⁶^9,266.638^9,304.137
^F^unds
Key Policy Issues
Needle Exchange
Whether to continue a needle exchange program funded with federal or District
funds was one of several key policy issues that Congress considered in reviewing the
District’s appropriations for FY2005. The controversy surrounding funding a needle
exchange program touches on issues of home rule, public health policy, and
government sanctioning and facilitating the use of illegal drugs. Proponents of a
needle exchange program contend that such programs reduce the spread of HIV
among illegal drug users by reducing the incidence of shared needles. Opponents of
these efforts contend that such programs amount to the government sanctioning
illegal drugs by supplying drug-addicted persons with the tools to use them. In
addition, they contend that public health concerns raised about the spread of AIDS
and HIV through shared contaminated needles should be addressed through drug
treatment and rehabilitation programs. Another view in the debate focuses on the
issue of home rule and the city’s ability to use local funds to institute such programs
free from congressional actions.
The prohibition on the use of federal and District funds for a needle exchange
program was first approved by Congress as Section 170 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277. The 1999 act did allow private
funding of needle exchange programs. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act

for FY2001, P.L. 106-522, continued the prohibition on the use of federal and
District funds for a needle exchange program; it also restricted the location of
privately funded needle exchange activities. Section 150 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2001 made it unlawful to distribute any needle or syringe
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug in any area in the city that is within
1,000 feet of a public elementary or secondary school, including any public charter
school. The provision was deleted during congressional consideration and passage
of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of FY2002, P.L. 107-96. The act also
included a provision that allows the use of private funds for a needle exchange
program, but it prohibits the use of both District and federal funds for such activities.
At present, one entity, Prevention Works, a private nonprofit AIDS awareness and
education program, operates a privately funded needle exchange program. The
FY2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act requires such entities to track and
account for the use of public and private funds.
During consideration of the FY2004 District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
District officials unsuccessfully sought to lift the prohibition on the use of District
funds for needle exchange programs. A Senate provision, which was not adopted,
proposed prohibiting only the use of federal funds for a needle exchange program
and allowing the use of District funds. The House and final conference versions of
the FY2004 allowed the use of private funds for needle exchange programs and
required private and public entities that receive federal or District funds in support
of other activities or programs to account for the needle exchange funds separately.
The President’s budget proposal for FY2005 included a provision that would
continue to prohibit the use of District and federal funds in support of a needle
exchange program. The House version of the District of Columbia Appropriations
Act for FY2005, H.R. 4850, included a provision that would retain the current law
prohibiting the use of federal and District funds for a needle exchange program. The
Senate version of the bill would have allowed District, but not federal, funds to be
used for such a program. The conference version of the act prohibits the use of
District and federal funds for a needle exchange program.
Medical Marijuana
The city’s medical marijuana initiative is another issue that engenders
controversy. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-

277, included a provision that prohibited the city from counting ballots of a voter-

approved initiative that would have allowed the medical use of marijuana to assist
persons suffering debilitating health conditions and diseases, including cancer and
HIV infection.
Congress’s power to prohibit the counting of a medical marijuana ballot
initiative was challenged in a suit filed by the D.C. Chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). On September 17, 1999, District Court Judge Richard
Roberts ruled that Congress, despite its legislative responsibility for the District
under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, did not possess the power to stifle or

prevent political speech, which included the ballot initiative.⁷ This ruling allowed
the city to tally the votes on the November 1998 ballot initiative. To prevent the
implementation of the initiative, Congress had 30 days to pass a resolution of
disapproval from the date the medical marijuana ballot initiative (Initiative 59) was
certified by the Board of Elections and Ethics. Language prohibiting the
implementation of the initiative was included in P.L. 106-113, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000. Opponents of the provision contend that
such congressional actions undercut the concept of home rule.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, included
a provision that continued to prohibit the District government from implementing the
initiative. Congress’s power to block the implementation of the initiative was again
challenged in the courts. On December 18, 2001, two groups, the Marijuana Policy
Project and Medical Marijuana Initiative Committee, filed suit in U.S. District Court,
seeking injunctive relief in an effort to put another medical marijuana initiative on
the November 2002 ballot. The District’s Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that
a congressional rider that has been included in the general provisions of each District
appropriations act since 1998 prohibits it from using public funds to do preliminary
work that would put the initiative on the ballot.
On March 28, 2002, a U.S. district court judge ruled that the congressional ban
on the use of public funds to put such a ballot initiative before the voters was
unconstitutional.⁸ The judge stated that the effect of the amendment was to restrict
the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to engage in political speech. The decision
was appealed by the Justice Department and on September 19, 2002, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the ruling of the lower court
without comment. The appeals court issued its ruling on September 19, 2002, which
was the deadline for printing ballots of the November 2002 general election.
The President’s budget proposal for FY2005 would have continued to prohibit
the implementation of the medical marijuana ballot initiative, while the District
budget for FY2005 does not include language related to the implementation of the
initiative. The House, Senate, and conference versions of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2005, H.R. 4850, included a provision that continues to
prohibit the implementation of the medical marijuana ballot initiative and the
decriminalization of marijuana possession for medical use.

⁷ Turner v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, No. 98-2634 Civ. (D.D.C.
Sept. 17, 1999; memorandum opinion).
⁸ Marijuana Policy Project v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, No. 01-
2595 Civ. (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2002; memorandum opinion, order and judgment). The district
court’s ruling was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals District of
Columbia Circuit. The court ruled without comment.

Abortion Provision
The public funding of abortion services for District of Columbia residents is a
perennial issue debated by Congress during its annual deliberations on District of
Columbia appropriations. District officials cite the prohibition on the use of District
funds as another example of congressional intrusion into local matters. The District
of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, included a provision
prohibiting the use of federal or District funds for abortion services, except in cases
where the life of the mother is endangered, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or
incest. This prohibition has been in place since 1995, when Congress approved the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134.
Since 1979, with the passage of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of
1980, P.L. 96-93, Congress has placed some limitation or prohibition on the use of
public funds for abortion services for District residents. From 1979 to 1988,
Congress restricted the use of federal funds for abortion services to cases where the
mother’s life would be endangered, or the pregnancy resulted from rape and incest.
The District was free to use District funds for abortion services.
When Congress passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1989,
P.L. 100-462, it restricted the use of District and federal funds for abortion services
to cases where the mother’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were taken to
term. The inclusion of District funds, and the elimination of rape or incest as
qualifying conditions for public funding of abortion services, was endorsed by
President Reagan, who threatened to veto the District’s appropriations act if the
abortion provision was not modified.⁹ 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.¹⁰
The District successfully sought the removal of the provision limiting District
funding of abortion services when Congress considered and passed the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994, P.L. 103-127. The FY1994 act also
reinstated rape and incest as qualifying circumstances allowing for the public funding
of abortion services. The District’s success was short-lived, however, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134, 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. The final version of the FY2004
appropriations for the District of Columbia included a provision that continued to
restrict the use of District and federal funds for abortion services except in cases of
rape or incest, or when the life of the mother is endangered.

⁹ “District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol.
XLIV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988), p. 713.
¹⁰ “D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac,
vol. XLV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), p. 757.

The District’s FY2005 appropriation bill, as approved by the House, the Senate,
and the conference committee, continues to prohibit the use of both District and
federal funds for abortion services, except in instances of rape, incest, or when
pregnancy endangers the health of the mother.
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act
(Domestic Partners Program)
P.L. 107-96 includes a provision lifting the congressional prohibition on the use
of District funds to implement its Health Care Benefits Expansion Act.¹¹ The
provision permits unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to register as
domestic partners. Under the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, which was
approved by the city’s elected leadership in 1992, an unmarried person who registers
as a domestic partner of a District employee hired after 1987 may be added to the
District employee’s health care policy for an additional charge. The act had not been
implemented until 2002 because of a congressional prohibition first included in the
general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994.
The city’s Health Care Benefits Expansion Act allows two cohabiting,
unmarried, and unrelated individuals to register as domestic partners with the District
for the purpose of securing certain health and family related benefits, including
hospital visiting rights. Under the law, District government employees enrolled in
the District of Columbia Employees Health Benefits Program are allowed to purchase
family health insurance coverage that would cover the employee’s family members,
including domestic partners. In addition, a District employee registered as a domestic
partner may assume the additional cost of the family health insurance coverage for
family members, which would include the employee’s domestic partner.
Opponents of the act maintain that it devalues the institution of marriage, and
that the act grants unmarried gay and heterosexual couples the same standing as
married couples. Congressional proponents of lifting the ban on the use of District
funds argue that the implementation of the act is a question of home rule and local
autonomy. Supporters of health care benefits for domestic partners note that as of

¹¹ On September 20, 2001, the House Appropriations Committee approved, by a vote of 28
to 21, an amendment introduced by Reps. Kolbe and Moran that removed the congressional
prohibition on the use of District funds for the implementation of the city’s Health Care
Benefits Expansion Act. The act, which was approved by the city’s elected leadership in
1992, had not been implemented because of a congressional prohibition first included in the
general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994. On September
25, 2001, during House consideration of H.R. 2944, the House version of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, Rep. Weldon offered an amendment (H.Amdt.
310) that would have reaffirmed the ban on the use of District funds to implement the health
care expansion program. The Weldon amendment failed by a vote of 194 to 226. The
Senate bill also included a provision that would have allowed the District to use city, but not
federal, funds to implement the District of Columbia Employees Health Benefits Program.
It had not been implemented because of a congressional prohibition first included in the
general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994. The District
began implementation of the health care benefits expansion program on July 8, 2002.

2003, 10 states, 175 local governments, and more than 7,000 companies, colleges,

and universities offered health insurance benefits to domestic partners.¹²
The House, Senate, and final conference versions of H.R. 4850, consistent with
the provision first included in the District’s FY2002 Appropriations Act, include a
general provision that allows the use of District funds to administer the program.
There has been some speculation in the press that the issue of gay marriage would
find its way into consideration of the city’s FY2005 appropriations.¹³ At least one
bill, H.R. 4773, would define marriage in the District of Columbia as a union
between a man and a woman.
Gun Control Repeal
During the 108^th Congress, legislation was introduced in the House (H.R. 3193)
and the Senate (S. 1414) that would have repealed a number of long-standing gun
control measures passed by the District of Columbia’s city council. The House and
Senate bills would have prohibited the District government from passing any laws
or regulations that exceed federal gun control measures or that would discourage,
restrict, or prohibit private ownership and use of firearms.
Both bills would also have repealed District laws that:
^!ban the sale and possession of handguns and semiautomatic
weapons;
^!prohibit the sale or possession of firearms except for three specific
types of the firearms (sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and short-
barreled rifles);
^!limit the possession of handgun ammunition; and
^!require all firearm registrants, except law enforcement personnel, to
keep any firearm unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger
lock or similar device unless the firearm is kept at the registrant’s
place of business, or is being used for lawful recreational purposes
within the District of Columbia.
In addition, the bills would have repealed provisions governing the registration of
firearms in the District, including those requiring gun registration applicants to be
photographed and fingerprinted and to meet certain age thresholds. The bills would
have also repealed District laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm by persons
who have been judged to be mentally or physically unfit, persons who have been

¹² Human Rights Campaign Foundation, “The State of the Workplace for Gay, Lesbian, and
TransgenderAmericans: 2003,” at [http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=The_Issues&
T e mplate=/ContentManagement/Cont entDisplay.cfm&ContentID=18678].
¹³ Jonathan Allen, “District of Columbia: Smooth Passage, or Usual Crop of Riders,” CQ
Weekly, vol. 62, June 5, 2004, p. 1325.

convicted or are under indictment for the commission of a violent crime, and persons
convicted of drug dealing.
The bills were referred to the House Committee on Government Reform and the
Senate Government Affairs Committee. Neither the House nor the Senate
committees of jurisdiction held hearings or took any action on the respective bills.
According to press reports, it was anticipated that Senator Craig would include the
language of S. 1414, which was introduced by Senator Hatch, in the District’s¹⁴
FY2005 appropriations measure. Senator Craig noted that he would have offered
his amendment only if he had sufficient votes in committee to secure its passage.
The bill, which was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on September
21, 2004 and approved by the Senate on September 22, 2004, did not include any
language repealing the city’s gun control laws. Representative Souder’s bill (H.R.

3193), with 228 cosponsors, was brought to the House floor for a vote on September¹⁵

29, 2004. The bill passed the House by a vote of 250 to 171. The bill was
forwarded to the Senate for consideration, but no action was taken.
The District’s mayor and its congressional delegate have voiced opposition to
the repeal of the city’s gun control measures, characterizing the bills as an “assault
on home rule” and warning that repealing the city’s gun control measures would
jeopardize public safety by increasing the availability of weapons. Supporters of the
repeal of the city’s gun control measures counter that the bill is intended not as an
intrusion on home rule, but rather as an effort to restore to District residents the
constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. In addition, supporters of
the bills note that the District’s gun control measures have been ineffective in
stemming the city’s crime rate.

¹⁴ Spenser S. Hsu, “D.C. Gun Bill May Be Linked to Budget,” Washington Post, Sept. 17,

2004, p. B3.

¹⁵ Spenser S. Hsu, “House GOP Proposes to Repeal DC Gun Ban,” Washington Post, Sept.

14, 2004, p. A1.