.
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy
May 14, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44030
c11173008
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
Summary
On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration released its budget request for FY2016. The
Administration’s proposed budget includes $474 million in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia government. An additional $286 million is requested for the Court Services
and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) and the Public Defender Service, two federally
chartered, independent agencies that work exclusively on behalf the District criminal justice
system. The combined budget requests total $760 million in special federal payments.
Approximately 80% ($612 million) of the President’s proposed budget request for the District
would be targeted to the courts and criminal justice system. The President’s budget request also
includes $83 million in support of education initiatives.
On April 2, 2015, the mayor of the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser, submitted her proposed
budget request for FY2016 to the District of Columbia Council for approval. The budget request
includes $474 million in special federal payments, $12.9 billion in total operating expenditures
and $1.2 billion in capital outlays. The mayor’s budget request does not include funding for Court
Services and Offender Supervision and the Public Defender Service, which are submitted under a
different account. The Council, pursuant to the requirements of the Home Rule Act, will have 56
days to review, amend, and approve the District’s budget. The approved budget, comprising
special federal payments, local sourced operating expenses, and general provisions, must be
submitted to the President for transmittal to Congress for its review and approval.
The mayor’s budget request also includes provisions that would grant the District significant
autonomy over its budgetary and legislative affairs. Specifically, the act would repeal portions of
the District’s code governing congressional review of all acts passed by the District of Columbia
Council, including referendum and initiatives. The inclusion of budget autonomy provisions in
the mayor’s request is part of an ongoing campaign by District officials to assert the principle of
home rule. In addition to the provisions included in the mayor’s budget request, the District’s
delegate to Congress has also introduced legislation, H.R. 552, that would grant the city budget
autonomy by eliminating all congressionally imposed mandates over the District’s financial
affairs, including local budget process, financial management and oversight, and short-term
borrowing. The issue of budget autonomy is currently being reviewed by the D.C. Court of
Appeals based on a challenge to a 2012 voter-approved referendum amending the city’s home
rule charter.
In addition, Congress may act upon a number of other issues when it reviews the FY2016 District
of Columbia appropriations act, including legislative autonomy, abortion services, needle
exchange, and Second Amendment (gun rights) issues. This report will be updated as events
warrant.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
FY2016 Budget Request .................................................................................................................. 1
The President’s FY2016 Budget Request .................................................................................. 2
District’s FY2016 Budget .......................................................................................................... 3
Congressional Action................................................................................................................. 4
Special Federal Payments.................................................................................................... 5
Local Operating Budget ...................................................................................................... 6
General Provisions: Key Policy Issues ............................................................................................ 7
Abortion Services ...................................................................................................................... 7
Local Budget Autonomy............................................................................................................ 9
Tables
Table 1. Status of FSGG and District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2016.................................. 1
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2015-FY2016:
Special Federal Payments ............................................................................................................. 5
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds: FY2016 ............................................ 6
Table 4. Date of Enactment of the D.C. Appropriations Act, FY1996-FY2015 .............................. 9
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 15
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
Introduction
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
August 27, 2015
(R44030)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Introduction
The authority for congressional review and approval of the District of Columbia
’'s budget is
derived from the Constitution and the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government
Reorganization Act of 1973 (Home Rule Act).
11 The Constitution gives Congress the power to
“ "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever
”" pertaining to the District of Columbia. In
1973, Congress granted the city limited home rule authority and empowered citizens of the
District to elect a mayor and city council. However, Congress retained the authority to review and
approve all District laws, including the District
’'s annual budget. As required by the Home Rule
Act, the city council must approve a budget within 56 days after receiving a budget proposal from
the mayor.
22 The approved budget must then be transmitted to the President, who forwards it to
Congress for its review, modification, and approval through the annual appropriations process.
3
3 This typically includes subcommittee hearings, which may take place before the actual budget
submission to Congress; subcommittee and committee markups in the House and the Senate;
committee reports and votes; floor action; conference report consideration; and final passage.
4
4 This budget review and approval process must be completed within approximately 120 calendar
days before the beginning of the District
’'s fiscal year on October 1.
FY2016 Budget Request
Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fund certain activities, but also
reviews, and may modify, the District
’'s entire budget, including the expenditure of local funds as
outlined in the District
’'s Home Rule Act.
55 Since FY2006, the District
’'s appropriations act has
been included in a multi-agency appropriations bill; before FY2006 the District budget was
considered by the House and the Senate as a stand-alone bill. It is currently included in the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill (FSGG). Table 1 will track the
District’ District's appropriation for FY2016 as it moves through the congressional review process.
Table 1. Status of FSGG and District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2016
Conference Report
Approval
Markup
House
Senate
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
House
Senate
Public
Law
1
See Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 446 of P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 801.
120 Stat. 2028.
3
87 Stat. 801.
4
Currently, the committees of jurisdiction are the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and District of Columbia; the House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government; the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce
and the District of Columbia; and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government.
5
D.C. Code §1-204.46.
2
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
District of Columbia appropriations acts typically include the following three components:
1.
Table 1. Status of FSGG and District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2016
|
Markup
|
House Report
|
House Passage
|
Senate Report
|
Senate Passage
|
Conf. Report
|
Conference Report Approval
|
Public Law
|
House
|
Senate
|
House
|
Senate
|
6/17/2015
|
7/23/2015
|
7/9/2015
H.Rept. 114-194
|
7/30/2015
S.Rept. 114-97
|
District of Columbia appropriations acts typically include the following three components:
1. Special federal payments appropriated by Congress to be used to meet certain
statutory
obligations6obligations6 and to fund particular initiatives or activities of interest
to Congress or the Administration.
2. The District’
2. The District's operating budget, which includes funds to cover the day-
todayto-day functions, activities, and responsibilities of the government; enterprise
funds that provide for the operation and maintenance of government facilities
or services that are entirely or primarily supported by user-based fees; and
long-term capital outlays such as road improvements. District operating
budget expenditures are paid for by revenues generated through local taxes
(sales and income), federal funds for which the District qualifies, and fees
and other sources of funds.
3.
3. General provisions are typically the third component of the District
’'s budget
reviewed and approved by Congress. These provisions can be grouped into
several distinct but overlapping categories, with the most predominant being
provisions relating to fiscal and budgetary directives and controls. Other
provisions include administrative directives and controls, limitations on
lobbying for statehood or congressional voting representation, congressional
oversight, and congressionally imposed restrictions and prohibitions related
to social policy.
It should be noted that Congress has, from time to time, included language authorizing new
programmatic initiatives or amendments to the District of Columbia home rule charter in the
District’ District's Appropriations bill. For example, in 1995, Congress included language authorizing the
creation of public charter schools in the District of Columbia as part of P.L. 104-134, a
consolidated appropriation measure.
77 In 2004, Congress included statutory provisions creating a
school voucher program as part of the District of Columbia Appropriations, which was a
component of a consolidated appropriations act, P.L. 108-199
.8
.8
The President
’'s FY2016 Budget Request
On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget request for FY2016.
The Administration
’'s proposed budget included $760 million in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia, including court services, offender supervision and public defender services,
which is $80 million more than the District
’'s FY2015 appropriation of $680 million. The
proposed $80 million increase includes additional funding for the Tuition Assistance Program,
court operations, and court services. The request also includes $20 million in funding for a mix of
new initiatives, including the promotion of solar energy, the redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths
campus, affordable housing, and funds for the arts.
6
The National Capital Revitalization Act, P.L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 712, transferred to the federal government control of
certain state-like functions, such as court operations and prisons, as part of an effort to return the city to fiscal solvency.
The act also created an independent federal agency, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) for the
District of Columbia, to perform community supervision of D.C. Code offenders, including responsibility for adult
probation and parole supervision.
7
110 Stat. 1321–107.
8
118 Stat.126.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
campus, affordable housing, and funds for the arts.
Approximately 80% ($612.4 million) of the President
’'s proposed budget request for the District
would be targeted to the courts and criminal justice system. This includes
•
$274.4 million in support of court operations;
•
$49.9 million for Defender Services;
9
•
9
$244.7 million for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for
the District of Columbia, an independent federal agency responsible for the
District’ District's pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions;
•
$1.9 million for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council;
•
$40.9 million for the public defender
’'s office;
10 and
•
10 and
$565,000 to cover costs associated with investigating judicial misconduct
complaints and recommending candidates to the President for vacancies to the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the District of Columbia Superior
Court.
11
11 The President
’'s budget request totals $83.6 million in support of education initiatives, including
$43.2 million to support elementary and secondary education, $435,000 to support the D.C.
National Guard college access program, and $40 million for college tuition assistance. These
amounts represent 10.9% of the Administration
’'s budget request for the District of Columbia for
FY2016. The President
’'s budget also includes a general provision in support of budget and
legislative autonomy for the District.
District’
District's FY2016 Budget
On April 2, 2015, the mayor of the District of Columbia submitted a proposed budget to the
District of Columbia Council. The FY2016 budget request includes $12.2 billion in operating
expenditures and $1.2 billion in capital outlays. The special federal payments section of the
mayor’ mayor's budget request is consistent with the Administration
’'s budget submission, excluding
funding for court services and public defender offices.12
9
Funds are administered by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia and may be
used to provide court appointed attorneys and other services for (1) indigent persons charged with a criminal offense;
(2) family proceedings in which child neglect is alleged, or where the termination of the parent-child relationship is
under consideration; and (3) the representation and protection of mentally incapacitated individuals and minors whose
parents are deceased. Funds may also be used to provide guardian training and payments for counsel appointed in
adoption proceedings, and for services such as transcripts of court proceedings, expert witness testimony, foreign and
sign language interpretation, investigations, and genetic testing.
10
The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia is a federally funded, independent organization governed
by an 11-member Board of Trustees. Created by federal statute (P.L. 91-358, D.C. Code Sec. 2-1601), the Public
Defender Service implements the constitutional mandate to provide criminal defense counsel for indigent individuals.
The organization also provides legal representation for individuals facing involuntary civil commitment in the District’s
mental health system or parole revocation for D.C. Code offenses.
11
This includes $295,000 to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure and $205,000 to the Judicial
Nomination Commission.
12
These funds are submitted under a separate budget request. These two agencies are federally chartered entities
working exclusively on behalf of the District.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
The mayor’ funding for court services and public defender offices.12
The mayor's budget request also includes general provisions that would grant the District greater
self-governance. The act proposes to provide some level of budget autonomy in the expenditure
of local funds and legislative autonomy. Specifically, the act, if approved by Congress, would
amend the District
’'s home rule charter by removing language that currently subjects the District
’s
's general fund budget to the congressional appropriations process. Also, the proposed amendment
would make the annual operating/local budget effective upon passage by the District Council.
The mayor would be directed to submit to the President for transmittal to Congress that portion of
the budget with respect to special federal payments for its review and approval. The amendment
would only require the mayor to notify the Speaker of House and the President of the Senate
regarding that portion of the budget covering the expenditure of local funds. No congressional
action would be needed.
In addition, the mayor
’'s budget request for FY2016 includes provisions intended to advance the
principles of home rule. The mayor
’'s proposal would
•
enact the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012;
13
•
13
shorten the congressional review period (which currently allows Congress 30
legislative days to review non-criminal-code legislation passed by the District of
Columbia Council and 60 days for legislation related to criminal offenses,
procedures, and prisoners) by eliminating language that excludes Saturdays,
Sundays, holidays, and any day on which neither chamber is in session because
of an adjournment sine die, a recess of more than three days, or an adjournment
of more than three days beginning on the day the legislation is transmitted to the
House or Senate; and
•
no longer subject proposed charter amendments to the 35-day congressional
review period.
As a fallback position, should Congress fail to enact the mayor
’'s proposal, the mayoral budget
request also includes language that would allow for the expenditure of local funds as outlined in
an approved budget request act or continuing budget resolution if Congress fails to enact a
District appropriations at the beginning of a fiscal year starting with FY2017. This provision
would be void if Congress approves amendments to the home rule charter granting the District
budget autonomy or if Congress enacts the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012, as
passed by the District of Columbia Council and ratified by District voters.
Congressional Action
Congressional Action
In the coming weeks and months, Congress will
continue review the District
’'s budget and consider
additional federal assistance to the District as part of the appropriations process for FY2016. This
section of the report will discuss congressional action as it occurs.
13
The act was recently the subject of a court challenge before the DC Court of Appeals. See “General Provisions: Key
Policy Issues” section of this report for a fuller discussion of budget autonomy.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
Special Federal Payments
Both the President and Congress may propose financial assistance to the District in the form of
special federal payments in support of specific activities or priorities. As noted in the sections
above, the Obama Administration budget proposal for FY2016 includes a request for $760
House Committee Bill, H.R. 2995
On July 9, 2015, the House Appropriations Committee approved the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2014, H.R. 2995, with an accompanying report (H.Rept. 114-194). The bill included $678.0 million in special federal payments to the District. This amount is $1.63 million less than appropriated for FY2015, $81.8 million less than requested by the Obama Administration and $10.7 million less than recommended by the Senate committee bill. The bill does not include funding for the District's Water and Sewer Authority, and recommends a substantial decrease in the amount proposed to be appropriated for the Resident Tuition Support (college access) program ($20 million less than the amount requested by the Administration and $10 million less than appropriated in FY2015). The bill also recommends $45 million in funding to support the District of Columbia Public Schools ($15 million), public charter schools ($15 million), and private school vouchers ($15 million).
General Provisions
Like its Senate counterpart, the House committee bill includes several general provisions governing budgetary and fiscal operations and controls, including prohibiting deficit spending within budget accounts, establishing restrictions on the reprogramming of funds, and allowing the transfer of local funds to capital and enterprise fund accounts. In addition, the bill would require the city's Chief Financial Officer to submit a revised appropriated funds operating budget for the District public schools within 30 days after the passage of the bill.
The House committee bill also includes several general provisions relating to statehood or congressional representation for the District, including provisions that would continue prohibiting the use of federal funds to
- support or defeat any legislation being considered by Congress or a state legislature;
- cover salaries, expenses, and other costs associated with the office of Statehood Representative and Statehood Senator for the District of Columbia; and
- support efforts by the District of Columbia Attorney General or any other officer of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action seeking voting representation in Congress for citizens of the District.
Unlike the Senate committee bill, H.R. 2995 would restrict the use of both District and federal funds for abortion service, except in cases of rape or incest, and where the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. The bill also includes a provision that would prohibit the use of federal funds to enact any law that would decriminalize or regulate the use of marijuana. In addition, the bill would continue to prohibit the use of federal funds to administer a needle exchange program.
Senate Committee Bill, S. 1910
On July 30, 2015, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1910, its version of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2016, with an accompanying report (S. Rept. 114-97). As reported, the bill recommends $688.7 million in special federal payments to the District. This amount is approximately $9.1 million more than appropriated for FY2015, and $71.1 million less than requested by the Administration. The bill includes $28.4 million less in funding for court operations than requested by the Administration, but only $900,000 less than appropriated in FY2015. It would appropriate $1.8 million less than the President's FY2014 request, for elementary and secondary education initiatives. These funds would be allocated among three specific initiatives: public school improvements ($15 million), support for public charter schools ($15 million), and funding a private school voucher program ($15 million for evaluation and administration activities). The Senate report accompanying the bill noted that there were sufficient unexpended funds available from pervious appropriations to meet the needs of the program.
General Provisions
The Senate committee bill's general provisions mirrored some of the language included in the House committee bill. Like the House committee bill, S. 1910 includes provisions governing budgetary and fiscal operations and controls. It also includes provisions restricting or prohibiting the use of federal funds to support District statehood or congressional voting representation and includes provisions that would continue prohibiting the use of federal funds to
- support or defeat any legislation being considered by Congress or a state legislature;
- cover salaries, expenses, and other costs associated with the office of Statehood Representative and Statehood Senator for the District of Columbia; and
- support efforts by the District of Columbia Attorney General or any other officer of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action seeking voting representation in Congress for citizens of the District.
The bill also included changes in two provisions that city officials have sought to eliminate or modify. The bill would
- continue the prohibition against the use of federal funds to provide abortion services; and
- maintain the current prohibition on the use of federal funds to support a needle exchange program.
The Senate committee bill includes provisions not included in the House Committee version of the FSGG bill. The Senate measure would grant the city budget autonomy over the expenditure of locally raised funds for FY2017. Specifically, the Senate measure would grant the District the authority to spend local funds if Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution or enact a federal appropriation authorizing the expenditure of local funds before the start of the District's 2017 fiscal year. The Senate Committee bill also includes provisions that would
- amend the District's Opportunity Scholarship Program by establishing additional certification requirements for private elementary and secondary schools participating in the scholarship program; and
- amend the District's college access program by reducing the household income threshold for resident tuition assistance grants.
Special Federal Payments
Both the President and Congress may propose financial assistance to the District in the form of special federal payments in support of specific activities or priorities. As noted in the sections above, the Obama Administration budget proposal for FY2016 includes a request for $760 million in special federal payments for the District of Columbia. Table 2 shows details of the
District’ District's federal payments, including the FY2015-enacted amounts, the amounts included in the
President’ President's FY2016 budget request, the amounts included in the budget approved by the city, the
amounts recommended by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, and the final
amounts appropriated.
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2015-FY2016:
Special Federal Payments
(in millions of dollars)
FY2015
Enacted
c11173008
FY2016
Admin.
Request
FY2016
Mayoral
Request
Resident Tuition
Support
30.000
40.000
40.000
Emergency Planning
and Security
12.500
14.900
14.900
District of Columbia
Courts
245.110
274.401
274.401
Defender Services
49.890
49.890
49.890
Court Services and
Offender
Supervision Agency
234.000
244.763
—-a
Public Defender
Service
41.231
40.889
—-a
Criminal Justice
Coordinating
Council
1.900
1.900
1.900
Judicial Commissions
0.565
0.565
0.565
Water and Sewer
Authority
14.000
24.300
24.300
School Improvement
45.000
43.200
43.200
Public Schools
15.000
20
20
Public Charter
Schools
15.000
20
20
Education
Vouchers-linked
activities
15.000
3.200
3.200
D.C. National Guard
0.435
0.435
0.435
D.C. Committee on
Arts and Humanities
—
1.000
1.000
Climate Risk
—
0.750
0.750
Congressional Research Service
FY2016
House
Committee
FY2016
Senate
Committee
FY2016
Enacted
5
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
FY2015
Enacted
FY2016
Admin.
Request
FY2016
Mayoral
Request
FY2016
House
Committee
FY2016
Senate
Committee
FY2016
Enacted
Management
Mass Transit
Innovation
—
1.000
1.000
Supportive Housing
—
6.000
6.000
Solar Power
Initiative
—
1.000
1.000
St. Elizabeths
Hospital Campus
Redevelopment
—
9.800
9.800
5.000
5.000
5.000
679.631
759.793
474.141
HIV/AIDS
Prevention
Special Federal
Payments (total)
Sources: FY2015 Enacted is taken from the President’s FY2016 budget request. Columns may not equal the
total due to rounding.
a.
Not included in the mayor’s budget request. This is a federally chartered entity working exclusively on
behalf of the District. Its budget request is submitted under a separate account.
Local Operating Budget
As noted previously, the District’s General Fund Budget for FY2016, which was released by the
mayor on April 2, 2015 totaled $12.9 billion, including $11.1 billion for operating expenses and
Special Federal Payments
(in millions of dollars)
FY2015 Enacted
|
FY2016 Admin. Request
|
FY2016 Mayoral Request
|
FY2016 House Committee
|
FY2016 Senate Committee
|
FY2016 Enacted
|
Resident Tuition Support
|
30.000
|
40.000
|
40.000
|
20.000
|
30.000
|
Emergency Planning and Security
|
12.500
|
14.900
|
14.900
|
12.500
|
13.000
|
District of Columbia Courts
|
245.110
|
274.401
|
274.401
|
259.100
|
246.000
|
Defender Services
|
49.890
|
49.890
|
49.890
|
49.890
|
49.890
|
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
|
234.000
|
244.763
|
—-a
242.750
|
242.000
|
Public Defender Service
|
41.231
|
40.889
|
—-a
40.889
|
40.889
|
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
|
1.900
|
1.900
|
1.900
|
1.900
|
1.900
|
Judicial Commissions
|
0.565
|
0.565
|
0.565
|
0.565
|
0.565
|
Water and Sewer Authority
|
14.000
|
24.300
|
24.300
|
0.000
|
14.000
|
School Improvement
|
45.000
|
43.200
|
43.200
|
45.000
|
45.000
|
Public Schools
|
15.000
|
20
|
20
|
15.000
|
15.000
|
Public Charter Schools
|
15.000
|
20
|
20
|
15.000
|
15.000
|
Education Vouchers-linked activities
|
15.000
|
3.200
|
3.200
|
15.000
|
15.000
|
D.C. National Guard
|
0.435
|
0.435
|
0.435
|
0.435
|
0.435
|
D.C. Committee on Arts and Humanities
|
—
|
1.000
|
1.000
|
—
|
—
|
Climate Risk Management
|
—
|
0.750
|
0.750
|
—
|
—
|
Mass Transit Innovation
|
—
|
1.000
|
1.000
|
—
|
—
|
Supportive Housing
|
—
|
6.000
|
6.000
|
—
|
—
|
Solar Power Initiative
|
—
|
1.000
|
1.000
|
—
|
—
|
St. Elizabeths Hospital Campus Redevelopment
|
—
|
9.800
|
9.800
|
—
|
—
|
HIV/AIDS Prevention
|
5.000
|
5.000
|
5.000
|
5.000
|
5.000
|
Special Federal Payments (total)
|
679.631
|
759.793
|
474.141
|
678.029
|
688.679
|
Sources: FY2015 Enacted is taken from the President's FY2016 budget request. FY2016 amounts were taken from President's FY2016 budget documents, the District's 2015 Budget Request Act for FY2016, and House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports (H.Rept. 114-194 and S.Rept. 114-97). Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
a.
Not included in the mayor's budget request. This is a federally chartered entity working exclusively on behalf of the District. Its budget request is submitted under a separate account.
Local Operating Budget
As noted previously, the District's General Fund Budget for FY2016, which was released by the mayor on April 2, 2015, totaled $12.9 billion, including $11.1 billion for operating expenses and $1.8 billion for enterprise funds (Table 3). These expenditures, which are supported by locally
raised revenues, must be approved by Congress. Under the District
’'s Home Rule Act,
1414 Congress
retains the power to review and approve all legislative acts of the District government, including
its annual budget.
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds: FY2016
(in millions of dollars)
District
House
Senate
Final
General Fund
Government Direction
and Support
798.611
Economic Development
and Regulation
534.865
Public Safety and Justice
1,295.583
Public Education
2,225.104
Human Support Services
4,441.995
Public Works
14
c11173008
768.921
D.C. Code § 1-206.01
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
District
Financing and Other
Total General
Operating Expenses
House
Senate
Final
1,088.281
11,153.360
Enterprise Funds
WASA
Washington Aqueduct
Lottery
Retirement Board
Convention Center
Housing Finance Agency
541.605
62.728
220.000
32.302
129.670
10.798
University of D.C.
150.459
Library Trust Fund
0.017
Unemployment
Insurance Trust Fund
235.000
Housing Production
Trust Fund
100.000
Tax Increment Financing
64.256
Baseball Fund
67.507
Repayment of PILOT
18.741
Not-for-Profit Hospital
Corporation
129.000
Health Benefit Exchange
Authority
32.513
Total Enterprise
Funds
1,794.596
Total Operating
Expenses
12,947.956
Capital Fund
Capital Construction
—Rescissions
Total Capital Outlay
1,772.734
730.968
1,041.766
Source: District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request Act as submitted by the mayor to the District of
Columbia Council.
General Provisions: Key Policy Issues
Abortion Services
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.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
District officials have cited the prohibition on the use of District funds as another example of
congressional intrusion into local matters. Since 1979, with the passage of the District of
District
|
House
|
Senate
|
Final
|
|
General Fund
|
Government Direction and Support
|
Economic Development and Regulation
|
Public Safety and Justice
|
Public Education
|
Human Support Services
|
Public Works
|
Financing and Other
|
Total General Operating Expenses
|
|
Enterprise Funds
|
WASA
|
Washington Aqueduct
|
Lottery
|
Retirement Board
|
Convention Center
|
Housing Finance Agency
|
University of D.C.
|
Library Trust Fund
|
Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund
|
Housing Production Trust Fund
|
Tax Increment Financing
|
Baseball Fund
|
Repayment of PILOT
|
Not-for-Profit Hospital Corporation
|
Health Benefit Exchange Authority
|
Total Enterprise Funds
|
Total Operating Expenses
|
|
Capital Fund
|
Capital Construction
|
—Rescissions
|
Total Capital Outlay
|
Source: District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request Act as passed the District of Columbia Council and H.Rept. 114-194 and S.Rept. 114-97.
General Provisions: Key Policy Issues
Abortion Services
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 have cited the prohibition on the use of District funds as another example of congressional intrusion into local matters. Since 1979, with the passage of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1980, P.L. 96-93 (93 Stat. 719), Congress has placed some
limitation or prohibition on the use of public funds for abortion services for District residents.
From 1979 to 1988, Congress restricted the use of federal funds for abortion services to cases
where the woman
’'s life was endangered or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Under
these circumstances, the District was free to use District funds for abortion services. When
Congress passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1989, P.L. 100-462 (102 Stat.
2269-9), it restricted the use of District and federal funds for abortion services to cases where the
woman’ woman'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 were endorsed by President Reagan, who threatened to veto the District
’'s appropriations
act if the abortion provision was not modified.
1515 In 1989, President George H.W. Bush twice
vetoed the District
’'s FY1990 appropriations act over the abortion issue. He signed P.L. 101-168
(103 Stat. 1278) after insisting that Congress include language prohibiting the use of District
revenues to pay for abortion services except in cases where the woman
’'s life was endangered.
16
16
The District successfully sought the removal of the provision limiting District funding of abortion
services when Congress considered and passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY1994, P.L. 103-127 (107 Stat. 1350). The FY1994 act also reinstated rape and incest as
qualifying circumstances allowing for the public funding of abortion services. The District
’s
's success was short-lived, however. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L.
104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-91), and subsequent District of Columbia appropriations acts, limited the
use of District and federal funds for abortion services to cases where the woman
’'s life was
endangered or cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
In FY2010, with the passage of P.L. 111-117, Congress lifted the prohibition on the use of District
funds for abortion services, but maintained the restriction on the use of federal funds for such
services except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the woman. The position was
reversed with the passage of the appropriations acts for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10), FY2012 (P.L.
11274112-74), FY2013 (P.L. 113-6), FY2014 (P.L. 113-76), and FY2015 (P.L. 113-235
). Those acts included
provisions restricting the use of both federal and District funds for abortion services, except in
instances of rape, incest, or the woman
’'s life was endangered if the pregnancy was carried to
term.
During the 112th term.
During the 112th Congress, two bills were considered in the House that would have banned or
restricted the provision of abortion services in the District of Columbia. On May 4, 2012, the
House passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act. The measure included a
provision (Section 309) that would have permanently prohibited the use of federal and District
funds for abortion services, except in instances of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the woman.
On June 17, 2012, the House Judiciary Committee ordered reported H.R. 3803, the District of
Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The bill would have permanently banned
doctors and health facilities from performing abortions in the District after the
20th week of
15
“District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLIV (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988), p. 713.
16
“ D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLV (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), p. 757.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
20th week of pregnancy, except when the pregnancy would result in the woman suffering from a physical
disorder, injury, or illness that endangers her life. It would have imposed fines and imprisonment
on doctors who violated the act and would have allowed the pregnant woman, the father of the
unborn child, or maternal grandparents of a pregnant minor to bring a civil action against any
person who performed an abortion after the
20th20th week of pregnancy. The act would have required
any physician that performed an abortion to report specific information to the relevant health
agency in the District, including post-fertilization age of the fetus and the abortion method used.
The District health agency would have been required to compile such information and issue an
annual report to the public. The District
’'s delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, though
not allowed to testify before the
Committeecommittee, spoke out against the measures as
infringements on
an infringement on home rule.
17
The Obama Administration’17
During consideration of the District of Columbia appropriations measures for FY2013 Congress lifted the restriction on the use of District funds for abortion services. However, in passing the District's FY2014 and FY2015 appropriations it reinstituted restrictions on the use of both District and federal funds for abortion services.
The Obama Administration's FY2016 request includes a provision that would continue to prohibit
the use of federal funds for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman
’s
's life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, but does not include language
that would restrict the use of District funds for abortion services. The mayor
’'s budget request
proposal does not include abortion services provisions.
Local Budget Autonomy
The House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 2995, would continue to prohibit the use of federal and District funds for abortion services, except in cases of rape or incest or when the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered if the fetus was carried to term while the Senate Appropriations Committee bill, S. 1910, would restrict the use of federal, but not District, funds for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the pregnant woman would be endangered if the fetus was carried to term.
Local Budget Autonomy
District of Columbia political leaders have consistently expressed concern that Congress has
repeatedly delayed passage of the appropriations act for the District (in which Congress approves
the city
’'s budget) well after the start of the District
’'s fiscal year. The city
’'s elected leaders
contend that delay in Congress
’'s approval of its budget hinders their ability to manage the
District’ District's financial affairs and negatively affects the delivery of public services.
A review of recent history reveals that approval of the District
’'s annual budget has been delayed
by complications in the congressional appropriations process. Rather than being enacted on its
own, the District of Columbia appropriations act has often been folded into omnibus or
consolidated appropriations acts, and continuing resolutions. As documented in Table 4, FY1997
was the only year out of the past 18 years for which the D.C. appropriations act was enacted
before the start of the fiscal year (on October 1 of the prior-numbered year). To mitigate the
impact of congressional delays in the approval of the District
’'s appropriation before the beginning
of a fiscal year, Congress has routinely included language in continuing budget resolutions
allowing the District to expend local funds on programs and activities included in its General
Fund budget.
Table 4. Date of Enactment of the D.C. Appropriations Act, FY1996-FY2015
Fiscal
Year
P.L.
Number
Date of
Enactment
1996
P.L. 104-134
April 26, 1996
|
Fiscal Year
|
P.L. Number
|
Date of Enactment
|
Remarks
|
1996
|
P.L. 104-134
|
April 26, 1996
|
Five general continuing resolutions and three laws targeted at D.C.
preceded this final omnibus appropriations act.
1997
P.L. 104-194
September 9,
1996
The District’
1997
|
P.L. 104-194
|
September 9, 1996
|
The District's initial budget request was rejected by the Financial
Control Board. It was cut and revised before being submitted to
Remarks
17
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, H.R.
3803,” House debate, Congressional Record, July 31, 2012, p. H5445.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
9
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
Fiscal
Year
P.L.
Number
Date of
Enactment
Remarks
the President and the Congress. The Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY1997, P.L. 104-208, also contained
several provisions regarding D.C. public schools.
c11173008
1998
P.L. 105-100
November 19,
1997
1998
|
P.L. 105-100
|
November 19, 1997
|
During part of the complicated approval process, the D.C. bill was
combined with two other appropriations bills. A controversial
school scholarship proposal was split off as a separate bill.
Between Oct. 1 and Nov. 19, the District was covered under
successive continuing resolutions on appropriations.
1999
P.L. 105-277
October 21,
1998
1999
|
P.L. 105-277
|
October 21, 1998
|
D.C. was one of eight regular appropriations bills included in the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999. From Oct. 1 through Oct. 21, D.C. was
covered under five general continuing resolutions.
2000
P.L. 106-113
November 29,
1999
2000
|
P.L. 106-113
|
November 29, 1999
|
The D.C. bill was included with four other appropriations
measures in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000. This was
the third D.C. appropriations bill for FY2000 approved by
Congress. Two previous bills were vetoed by President Clinton.
2001
P.L. 106-522
November 22,
2000
2001
|
P.L. 106-522
|
November 22, 2000
|
Enactment of the D.C. appropriations bill was delayed nearly one
month because it was first combined with another appropriation in
a bill vetoed by President Clinton.
2002
P.L. 107-96
December 21,
2001
2002
|
P.L. 107-96
|
December 21, 2001
|
Congressional approval of D.C. appropriations was delayed by
efforts to resolve differences between the House and Senate over
“ "general provisions" addressing social policy and to eliminate
redundant or obsolete provisions.
2003
P.L. 108-7
February 20,
2003
The 107th
2003
|
P.L. 108-7
|
February 20, 2003
|
The 107th Congress did not complete action on D.C.
’'s and 10
other appropriations bills for FY2003 before it adjourned at the
end of 2002. Eight continuing resolutions froze spending by the
District and federal agencies at the FY2002 level until the
108th
108th Congress approved the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution,
2003, encompassing 11 appropriations acts.
2004
P.L. 108-199
January 23, 2004
2004
|
P.L. 108-199
|
January 23, 2004
|
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, including the D.C.
and six other appropriations acts, was not enacted until the
second session of the
108th108th Congress. Five continuing resolutions
were enacted to cover the District and affected federal agencies
for the first four months of FY2004.
2005
P.L. 108-335
October 18,
2004
2005
|
P.L. 108-335
|
October 18, 2004
|
The D.C. Appropriations Act was enacted on its own, just a few
weeks after the start of the fiscal year.
2006
P.L. 109-115
November 30,
2005
2006
|
P.L. 109-115
|
November 30, 2005
|
D.C. appropriations were included together with five other
appropriations in a consolidated appropriations act enacted two
months after the start of the fiscal year.
2007
P.L. 110-5
February 5, 2007
2007
|
P.L. 110-5
|
February 5, 2007
|
The D.C. bill was combined with six other appropriations bills, but
that consolidated bill was not enacted. Ultimately, the government
operated under continuing appropriations resolutions for the
entire fiscal year.
2008
P.L. 110-161
December 26,
2007
2008
|
P.L. 110-161
|
December 26, 2007
|
On September 29, 2007, the President signed a continuing budget
resolution, P.L. 110-92, that included a provision allowing the
District to spend local funds at a rate consistent with amounts
identified in the District
’'s FY2008 Proposed Budget and Financial
Plan submitted to Congress by the District of Columbia on June 7,
2007, and amended on June 29, 2007. The Financial Services and
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
Fiscal
Year
P.L.
Number
Date of
Enactment
Remarks
General Government Appropriations Act, which included the D.C.
Appropriations Act, was ultimately included in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008,
P.L. 110-161.
2009
|
P.L. 111-8
|
March 11, 2009
|
P.L. 110-161.
c11173008
2009
P.L. 111-8
March 11, 2009
On September 30, 2008, the President signed the Consolidated
Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act
of 2009, P.L. 110-329. The act included a provision allowing the
District of Columbia to expend local funds for programs and
activities under the heading
“"District of Columbia Funds
’’" at a rate
consistent with amounts identified in the District
’'s FY2009
Proposed Budget and Financial Plan submitted to Congress by the
District of Columbia on June 9, 2008.
2010
P.L. 111-117
December 16,
2009
2010
|
P.L. 111-117
|
December 16, 2009
|
On October 1, 2009, the President signed the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for FY2010, P.L. 111-68. The act
included a provision (Division B, Sec. 126) allowing the District of
Columbia government to spend locally generated funds at a rate
set forth in the budget approved by the District of Columbia on
August 26, 2009.
2011
P.L. 112-10
April 15, 2011
2011
|
P.L. 112-10
|
April 15, 2011
|
Provision was included in Department of Defense And Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, P.L. 112-10, allowing the
District of Columbia to expend local funds for programs and
activities under the heading
“"District of Columbia Funds
’’" at a rate
consistent with amounts identified in the District
’'s FY2011 Budget
Request Act (D.C. Act 18-448).
2012
P.L. 112-74
December 23,
2011
2012
|
P.L. 112-74
|
December 23, 2011
|
On September 30, 2011, President signed a Continuing Budget
Resolution, P.L. 112-34, allowing the District of Columbia to
expend local funds for programs and activities under the heading
`` "District of Columbia Funds
’’" at a rate consistent with amounts
identified in the District
’'s FY2012 Budget Request Act (D.C. Act
19-92).
2013
P.L. 113-6
March 26, 2013
19-92).
2013
|
P.L. 113-6
|
March 26, 2013
|
On September 28, 2012, because no regular FY2013 District of
Columbia appropriations bill could be enacted before October 1,
2012, Congress included language in P.L. 112-175 allowing the
District of Columbia to expend local funds for programs and
activities under Title IV of H.R. 6020
(112th (112th Congress), as reported
by the House Committee on Appropriations, at the rate set forth
under
‘‘''District of Columbia Funds—Summary of Expenses
’’" as
included in the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request Act of 2012 (D.C.
Act 19–381), as modified as of the date of the enactment of
H.J.Res 117/H. J.
Res. 117/P.L. 112-175. The act authorized the District to expend
local funds for certain programs and activities. On March 26, 2013,
the President signed P.L. 113-6, which included special
appropriations for the District of Columbia.
2014
P.L. 113-76
January 17, 2013
2014
|
P.L. 113-76
|
January 17, 2013
|
On October 17, 2013, the President signed a continuing
appropriations act for FY2014, P.L. 113-46, which provided funding
authority through January 15, 2014, and included a provision
releasing the District
‘'s General Fund Budget for FY2014 from
further congressional review, allowing the District to expend
locally raised revenues as outlined in the its Fiscal Year 2014
Budget Request Act of 2013 (D.C. Act 20-0127). On January 17,
2014, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act
for FY2014, P.L. 113-76, which included provisions approving
FY2014 special federal payments to the District and the District
’s
's FY2014 operating budget for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
Fiscal
Year
2015
P.L.
Number
Date of
Enactment
P.L. 113-235
December 16,
2014
Remarks
2015
|
P.L. 113-235
|
December 16, 2014
|
On September 19, 2014, the President signed into law P.L.
113134113-134, a Continuing Budget Resolution for FY2015 (CR). The CR
included a provision (Sec. 123) that allowed the District of
Columbia to expend local funds under the heading
“"District of
Columbia Funds
”" for programs and activities under title IV of
H.R. 5016 (113thH.R.
5016 (113th Congress) as passed by the House of Representatives
on July 16, 2014, at the rate set forth under
“"District of Columbia
Funds–Summary of Expenses
”" as included in the Fiscal Year 2015
Budget Request Act of 2014 (D.C. Act 20-370.) On December 16,
2014, the President signed the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act of FY2015, P.L. 113-235, which
included provisions approving FY2015 special federal payments to
the District.
Source:
Source: CRS analysis of legislative information obtained from Congress.gov.
The mayor
’'s FY2016 budget request, which must be considered and approved by the Council
before it is forwarded for congressional review, includes provisions that would provide the
District with some level of autonomy over locally raised revenues. Specifically, the budget
request would
•
allow the District to decouple its fiscal year from the federal fiscal year allowing
the District to establish when its local fiscal year would start;
•
permit District officials to obligate and expend local funds upon enactment by the
District of its local annual budget; and
•
grant the District the authority to spend local funds if Congress does not enact a
federal appropriation authorizing the expenditure of local funds before the start
of the District
’'s fiscal year.
18
18In addition, the District Delegate to Congress has introduced legislation, H.R. 552, a bill that
would grant the District budget autonomy over locally raised revenues by eliminating the
requirement for congressional approval of the District
’'s General Fund budget. This is one in a line
of budget autonomy bills that have been introduced in successive Congresses starting in 1981
when then District of Columbia Delegate to Congress, Walter Fauntroy, introduced a budget
autonomy measure.
19
19
In addition
, to legislative proposals before Congress, in 2014, the District of Columbia Council
was involved in a legal dispute with then Mayor Vincent Grant and the Chief Financial Officer,
Jeffrey DeWitt, regarding a budget autonomy amendment to the District
’'s home rule charter. On
December 19, 2012, District of Columbia Council passed the Local Budget Autonomy Act of
2012, B19-993. The mayor signed the measure as A19-0632, on January 18, 2013. Subject to
voter approval through the referendum process, the bill purportedly amended the District
’s home
18
In addition to budget autonomy provisions included in the Mayor’s budget request, the District’s Delegate to
Congress has also introduced legislation H.R. 552, that would grant local budget autonomy to the District. The District
is also appealing a Superior Court decision in District of Columbia Council v Vincent Gray, Mayor of the District of
Columbia. The case is before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
19
The bill, H.R. 1254, as introduced in the 97th Congress would have amended the District’s home rule charter by
granting the District government autonomy over the expenditure of funds derived from locally generated revenues.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
's home rule charter by eliminating the requirement for congressional approval of the District of Columbia
budget as part of the federal appropriations process. Instead, the charter amendment simply would
subject the District local budget (General Fund Budget) to a 30-day congressional review/layover
period like all other laws passed by the District. Despite objections raised by the District
’s
's Attorney General in a letter,
2020 dated January 4, 2013, the District of Board of Elections placed the
proposed charter amendment on an April 23, 2013, ballot. District of Columbia voters approved
the local budget autonomy charter amendment with 83% of the vote in support of the
amendment.
21
21
Although supportive of budget autonomy, the mayor informed the Council, in an April 11, 2014,
letter,
2222 of his intent not to enforce the law based on the opinion of the District
’'s Attorney General
that the charter amendment was unlawful. According to the mayor, the opinion of the District
’s
's Attorney General is legally
“"binding on Executive branch of the District government absent a
controlling court opinion to the contrary.
”23"23 The essential legal objection to the proposed charter
amendment is captured in this excerpt from the Attorney General
’'s letter to the District
’'s Board of
Election urging the Board of Election not to place the referendum of the ballot:
…, the OAG has serious reservations about the legality of the amendment, whether it would
be sustained if challenged in court and most pertinently, whether the Board has the authority
to place this amendment on a ballot referendum in light of the clear prohibition under
Section 303(d) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (
“"Home Rule Act
”"), approved
December 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 790, P.L. 93-198, D.C. Code §1-203.03(d) (2012 Supp.). That
provision of governing law provides in relevant part that
“"the [Charter] amending procedure
may not be used to enact any law or affect any law with respect to which the Council may
not enact under the limitations specified in §1-206.01 to §1-206.03
.”." The statute is phrased
in clear mandatory terms: a proposed amendment is precluded by law from going on the
ballot through the Charter-amending procedure of Section 303 if the proposed amendment
would
“"enact any law or affect any law with respect to which the Council may not enact ...
under the limitation specified in
”" Sections 206.01-03. For reasons we detail below it is
precisely these limitations, reserving to Congress, among other things, the authority to
change the laws governing the role played by Congress and the President in the District
’s
's budget that in the considered judgment of this office, preclude using the charter amendment
procedures, including the placement on a ballot for the electorate for the proposed
amendment. Likewise, it is our view that under those express limitations, Congress or a court
reviewing the merits of the legal issue would find the amendment to be outside the scope of
the Charter amending process in Section 303 and also contrary to other federal laws, those
found in Title 31 of the U.S. Code.
These objections were reiterated and expanded upon in an April 8, 2014, legal analysis by the
Office of Attorney General. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis articulated
the following objections to the proposed charter amendment:
20
See hand delivered letter to the District of Columbia Board of Elections at http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/
sites/oag/publication/attachments/to%20k.%20mcghie%20re%20budget%20autonomy%20act%201-4-13.pdf.pdf.
21
Mike DeBonis, “D.C. Council Files a Lawsuit Against Mayor, CFO Over Budget Autonomy Measure,” Washington
Post, April 17, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-files-a-lawsuit-against-mayor-cfoover-budget-autonomy-measure/2014/04/17/0cb80d64-c646-11e3-9f37-7ce307c56815_story.html.
22
See http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/letter_from_mayor_to_chairman1.pdf.
23
Ibid. p. 2.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
I. The act the following objections to the proposed charter amendment:
The act is null and void because the Council exceeded its authority in enacting it
and
and because it violates federal law.
a1. The act violates the limitations of Section 602(a)(3) because it changes
the functions of the United States and because it is not restricted in its
application exclusively or to the District.
b
2. The act violates the limitations of Section 603(a) because it changes the
longstanding roles and procedures of Congress, the President, and other
federal entities in the formation of the District
’'s total budget.
a
3. The act violates the limitations of Section 603(e) by using the ratification
process to establish local budget autonomy.
II. The legal arguments advanced in support of the
actact are unpersuasive.
24
24
A GAO legal analysis also raised the same objection and questioned the legal standing of the
proposed charter amendment.
25
25
On April 17, 2014, the District of Columbia Council filed a suit in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia to compel the mayor to execute the charter amendment
changes. On May 19, 2014, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia issued an opinion concluding that the Local Budget Autonomy Act was
unlawful and that District officials were permanently enjoined from enforcing it.
2626 The Council
appealed the decision and on October 18, 2014, presented its case before a three-judge panel of
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Before the panel issued a ruling a
new mayor was elected, Muriel Bowser, who reversed Mayor Gray
’'s decision not to enforce the
Budget Autonomy Act. On March 23, 2015, a Suggestion of Mootness and Motion to Dismiss
was filed with United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
2727 The motion claimed
that since there was no dispute or disagreement between the Council and the mayor, the judgment
rendered by the District Court for the District of Columbia in April 2014 should be vacated, the
appeal dismissed, and the case remanded to the D.C. Superior Court. The Appeals Court has not
yet acted on the motion to dismiss. Despite all that has transpired
, the issue of budget autonomy
remains an open question.
24
Letter from Irvin Nathan, District of Columbia Attorney General, to Vince Gray, Mayor of the District of Columbia,
April 8, 2014, Exhibit E at http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Complaint1.pdf.
25
S. 1910 does include a provision that would grant the District the authority to spend local funds if Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution or enact a federal appropriation authorizing the expenditure of local funds before the start of the District's 2017 fiscal year. A similar provision applying the FY2015 expenditure of local funds was included in P.L. 113-134, a Continuing Budget Resolution for FY2015 (CR). Specifically, the CR allows the District to expend local funds at the rate set forth under "District of Columbia Funds–Summary of Expenses" as included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request Act of 2014 (D.C. Act 20-370.)
Author Contact Information
[author name scrubbed], Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Footnotes
| 1.
|
See Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 446 of P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 801.
|
| 2.
|
120 Stat. 2028.
|
| 3.
|
87 Stat. 801.
|
| 4.
|
Currently, the committees of jurisdiction are the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and District of Columbia; the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government; the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia; and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.
|
| 5.
|
D.C. Code §1-204.46.
|
| 6.
|
The National Capital Revitalization Act, P.L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 712, transferred to the federal government control of certain state-like functions, such as court operations and prisons, as part of an effort to return the city to fiscal solvency. The act also created an independent federal agency, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) for the District of Columbia, to perform community supervision of D.C. Code offenders, including responsibility for adult probation and parole supervision.
|
| 7.
|
110 Stat. 1321–107.
|
| 8.
|
118 Stat.126.
|
| 9.
|
Funds are administered by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia and may be used to provide court appointed attorneys and other services for (1) indigent persons charged with a criminal offense; (2) family proceedings in which child neglect is alleged, or where the termination of the parent-child relationship is under consideration; and (3) the representation and protection of mentally incapacitated individuals and minors whose parents are deceased. Funds may also be used to provide guardian training and payments for counsel appointed in adoption proceedings, and for services such as transcripts of court proceedings, expert witness testimony, foreign and sign language interpretation, investigations, and genetic testing.
|
| 10.
|
The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia is a federally funded, independent organization governed by an 11-member Board of Trustees. Created by federal statute (P.L. 91-358, D.C. Code Sec. 2-1601), the Public Defender Service implements the constitutional mandate to provide criminal defense counsel for indigent individuals. The organization also provides legal representation for individuals facing involuntary civil commitment in the District's mental health system or parole revocation for D.C. Code offenses.
|
| 11.
|
This includes $295,000 to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure and $205,000 to the Judicial Nomination Commission.
|
| 12.
|
These funds are submitted under a separate budget request. These two agencies are federally chartered entities working exclusively on behalf of the District.
|
| 13.
|
The act was recently the subject of a court challenge before the DC Court of Appeals. See "General Provisions: Key Policy Issues" section of this report for a fuller discussion of budget autonomy.
|
| 14.
|
D.C. Code § 1-206.01
|
| 15.
|
"District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill," Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLIV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988), p. 713.
|
| 16.
|
"D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding," Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), p. 757.
|
| 17.
|
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, "District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, H.R. 3803," House debate, Congressional Record, July 31, 2012, p. H5445.
|
| 18.
|
In addition to budget autonomy provisions included in the Mayor's budget request, the District's Delegate to Congress has also introduced legislation H.R. 552, that would grant local budget autonomy to the District. The District is also appealing a Superior Court decision in District of Columbia Council v Vincent Gray, Mayor of the District of Columbia. The case is before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
|
| 19.
|
The bill, H.R. 1254, as introduced in the 97th Congress would have amended the District's home rule charter by granting the District government autonomy over the expenditure of funds derived from locally generated revenues.
|
| 20.
|
See hand delivered letter to the District of Columbia Board of Elections at http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oag/publication/attachments/to%20k.%20mcghie%20re%20budget%20autonomy%20act%201-4-13.pdf.pdf.
|
| 21.
|
Mike DeBonis, "D.C. Council Files a Lawsuit Against Mayor, CFO Over Budget Autonomy Measure," Washington Post, April 17, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-files-a-lawsuit-against-mayor-cfo-over-budget-autonomy-measure/2014/04/17/0cb80d64-c646-11e3-9f37-7ce307c56815_story.html.
|
| 22.
|
See http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/letter_from_mayor_to_chairman1.pdf.
|
| 23.
|
Ibid. p. 2.
|
| 24.
|
Letter from Irvin Nathan, District of Columbia Attorney General, to Vince Gray, Mayor of the District of Columbia, April 8, 2014, Exhibit E at http://dccouncil.us/files/performance_oversight/Complaint1.pdf.
|
25.
|
U.S. Government Accountability Office, District of Columbia—Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012
, B-324987, B324987, January 30, 2014, pp. 5-8, http://www.gao.gov/products/D06683
.
26
.
26.
|
District of Columbia Council v. Vincent C. Gray, Mayor of the District of Columbia and Jeffrey DeWitt, Chief
Financial Officer, Civil Action No. 14.655 https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2014cv0655-44
(United States District Court for the District of Columbia 2014).
27
27.
|
Council of the District of Columbia, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Muriel Bowser, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees
, USCA
14706714-7067 (United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 2015).
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2016 Appropriations: District of Columbia
.
Author Contact Information
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
Policy
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
15