Order Code RL30213
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY2000:
District of Columbia
Updated July 30, 1999
Eugene Boyd, Coordinator
Analyst
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions,
and budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget
request and is bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress
passes each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House
and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on the District of Columbia. It
summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding
levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to
the issues covered and related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments,
especially following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House
and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]

---

Appropriations for FY2000: District of Columbia
Summary
On July 29, 1999, the House passed H.R. 2587, a bill appropriating federal
funds for the District of Columbia for FY2000, after debating and voting on several
controversial issues including the institution of a needle exchange program and the
tallying of votes from last year’s medical marijuana initiative. On July 1, 1999 the
Senate passed S. 1283, its version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY2000. The Senate debate and amendments focused on the need for continued
improved in quality-of-life factors, and the wisdom of city-passed tax reduction
legislation. Several weeks earlier, on May 11,1999, the District of Columbia elected
leadership, with the approval of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority, submitted for congressional approval a consensus
FY2000 budget request exceeding $5 billion. The city’s budget proposes $614.1
million in federal payments to the District of Columbia, principally in the areas of
corrections, the courts, offender services, special education, and school construction.
The District’s budget as approved by the full Senate on July 1, 1999, and the
House on July 29, 1999, includes $4.7 billion in general fund operating expenses, and
$676 million in enterprise funds. The Senate bill also includes $410.7 million in
federal payments to the District of Columbia, and would increase federal payments
for court operations, courts services and offender supervision above amounts
appropriated in FY1999. The Senate bill recommends $136.4 million in federal
payments for court operations including defender services, with the majority of the
$8.4 million increase allocated to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.
The bill also includes a $80.3 million federal payment for the offender supervision
agency. S. 1283 includes a 5% salary increase for city council members resulting in
an annual salary of $84,635.. The Senate bill recommends increasing the salary of the
chair of the city council to $102,000. The Senate bill would require the city to
maintain a $150 million reserve fund and a four percent general fund surplus balance
H.R. 2587, would provide $453 million in federal payments. It would allocate
$100 million or court operations, and an additional $33.3 million for defender services
for attorneys representing indigent persons and abused and neglected children under
a new account. The bill also would appropriate $105.5 million for offender
supervision activities. The House bill includes a $150 million reserve, but allows the
city to expend any surplus revenue to meet seasonal cash needs, repay funds
borrowed from the water and sewer fund, or to reduce long-term debt. The House bill
maintains the prohibition on the use of federal funds for a needle exchange program,
but drops the prohibition on the use of funds to tally the results of last year’s ballot
initiative on medical marijuana. It would continue federal penalties for the possession,
distribution, or use of such a controlled substance. The bill also includes $8.5 million
in federal funds for innovated programs intended to increase the rate of adoption of
children in foster care.
H.R. 2587 and S. 1283 include a $17 million federal contribution to fund a
proposed legislative initiative that would grant eligible residents of the District of
Columbia in-state tuition status when seeking college admissions in other states.

---

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Telephone
DC Education
Carol Glover
DSP
7-7353
DC Corrections
JoAnne O’Bryant
DSP
7-6819
DC Courts
Steve Rutkus
G&F
7-7162
DC-Federal Fiscal
Relations
Nonna A. Noto
G&F
7-7826
DC Politics and
Governance
Eugene Boyd
G&F
7-8689
DSP= Domestic Social Policy Division, G&F=Government and Finance Division

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
District of Columbia Financial Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Changes in District Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Management Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
District of Columbia City Council Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Receiverships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
No Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FY2000: The President’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FY2000: 302(b) Suballocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Congressional Action on the Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
FY2000: Senate Bill, S. 1283. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Federal Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Local Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Senate Floor Consideration of S. 1283 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
FY2000: House Bill, H.R. 2587. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Federal Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Local Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
House Floor Consideration of H.R. 2587 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special Federal Payment Funds: Proposed
FY2000 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 3. District of Columbia General: District of Columbia Funds . . . . . . . . . 13

---

Appropriations for FY2000:
District of Columbia
Most Recent Developments
On July 29, the House passed H.R. 2587, a bill appropriating funds for the
District of Columbia for FY2000. On July 1, 1999, the Senate passed S. 1283, its
version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000. The House bill
would provide $453 million in special federal payments to the District of Columbia.
The Senate bill would appropriate $410.7 million in such payments.
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2000
Committee Markup
Confer. Report
Approved
House
House
Senate
Senate
Confer.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Hse.
Sen.
Law
7/20/99
6/24/99
H. Rept.
7/29/99
S. Rept.
7/1/99
—
—
—
—
106-249
106-88
Background
District of Columbia Financial Condition
The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-8) created the Authority and the Office of Chief Financial
Officer (CFO). The Authority and CFO are charged with improving the delivery of
city services and returning the District of Columbia to a position of financial solvency
as evidenced by four consecutive years of balanced municipal budgets. Working in
concert with the District’s elected political leadership, the Authority and the CFO
have implemented a series of financial and management reforms. These reforms, the
shifting of some state-like functions to the federal government, improved tax
collections, and an improved economy have resulted in two consecutive years of
budget surpluses, with the possibility of yet a third.
The District ended FY1997 with a surplus of $185,900,000. For FY1998, the
city’s budget surplus was $112,492,000. The FY1998 surplus was in part the result
of the National Capital Revitalization Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33). The Act. allocated
to the city more than $5 billion in federal funds; transferred government financial
responsibility for prisons and court operations; and the accumulated pension liability
for police, firefighters, teachers, and judges to the federal government. The Act also
increased the federal share for Medicaid from 50% to 70%.

---

CRS-2
At the end of FY1998, the District’s accumulated general fund balance was $112
million. The city’s accumulated general fund surplus at the end of FY1999 is
projected to be $282 million, according to the District’s proposed FY2000 budget.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999 [P.L. 105-277, Division A,
Sec. 101(c)], requires the inclusion of a $150 million operating reserve in any budget
submitted for congressional approval, beginning with the budget for FY2000. Based
on this provision, the District’s proposed FY2000 budget would produce a projected
FY2000 year-end surplus of $313 million.
Changes in District Leadership
During 1998, the District’s elected political leadership changed. On November
5, 1998, voters elected the District’s former CFO, Anthony Williams, to be mayor of
the District of Columbia. Mr. Williams, who had served three years as the District’s
CFO before resigning on June 8, 1998, ran on his record as CFO. Mr. Williams
defeated four veteran members of the Council of the District of Columbia (the
Council) during the primary and general elections.
Changes in the city’s mayoral leadership were also accompanied by changes in
the city’s elected legislative body, the Council of the District of Columbia. In the
general election in November 1998, District voters elected three new city council
members—Vincent Orange, Jim Graham, and Phil Mendelson— and reelected David
Catania, who had been elected in December 1997 in a special election. Catania and
the three new Council members, who unseated established incumbents, ran on reform-
minded, “good government” platforms.
The District voters also elected five members to the city’s elected school board.
They include Gail Dixon (At-large), Westy Byrd (Ward 2), Tom Kelly (Ward 7),
William Lockridge (Ward 8), and Dwight Singleton (Ward 4). None had served
previously on the elected school board. In addition, the school board successfully
challenged the Authority’s power to appoint an education oversight committee,

---

CRS-3
arguing that the oversight committee lacked the authority to usurp the board’s
powers. This led to the signing of an agreement between the Authority and the school
board that would allow the school board to regain control of the public schools by
June 30, 2000.
In addition to changes in elected leadership, there were changes in the
composition of the Authority. During the three-month period from June through
August the President appointed four new members to the five-member Authority,
including a new chair. In mid-June 1998, the President appointed Robert P. Watkins,
a former federal prosecutor, and Dr. Alice Rivlin, vice chair of the Federal Reserve
Board, to the Authority for three-year terms. The President also reappointed
Constance Newman to a one-year term on July 29, 1998. On August 4, 1998, the
President appointed Eugene Kinlow, a board member of Washington Metropolitan
Transit Authority, and Darius Mans, a World Bank economist, to two-year terms on
the Authority. September 1, 1998 marked the start of the terms of the newly
appointed members of the Authority. The President designated Dr. Rivlin as the
Authority’s new chair, replacing Dr. Andrew Brimmer. Also stepping down from the
Authority were Joyce Ladner, Edward Singletary, and Stephen Harlan.
Management Reform
On March 5, 1999, the President signed the District of Columbia Management
Restoration Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-1). The act repeals the District of Columbia
Management Reform Act of 1997 (Subtitle B of Title XI of the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997, P.L. 105-33), thus restoring to the mayor management authority for the daily
operation of the city’s nine largest departments.
The act allows the mayor to appoint and dismiss department heads. It also
restores the Council’s authority to confirm mayoral appointments without the
concurrence of the Authority. This transfer in management authority represents
progress by the city’s elected government, working with the Authority, in its effort
to restore self-government largely lost since April 1995. In restoring the mayor ‘s
management authority Congress seeks greater accountability and less diffusion of
responsibility by clarifying the lines of responsibility and authority between the mayor
and the Authority.
The change in the Authority’s leadership and the election of Anthony Williams
as mayor has coincided with statutory changes in the relationship between elected city
officials and the Authority. In the past the Authority took a much more direct role in
daily operations of the District government. Mayor Williams, the former CFO,
successfully lobbied the Authority to transfer control of the nine major agencies from
the Chief Management Officer (CMO) to the mayor, restoring some measure of home
rule. The transfer of power to hire and dismiss the department heads in charge of the
city’s nine largest agencies changes the role of the Authority from direct management
to oversight.
Management reforms have proceeded unevenly, according to a variety of
observers. Despite progress made in some agencies, others have recently faltered.
The police department is reported to have been slow to decrease the number of
officers doing administrative work; response time problems persist in the District’s
911 (emergency) and 1010 (non-emergency) telephone system. In addition, the

---

CRS-4
District is losing $1.8 million annually because it maintains 9,000 unused telephone
lines. Moreover, the city’s property management department acknowledged that the
District has been leasing at lease eight blighted, vacant, or abandoned building for a
period of years. An additional 162 blighted and abandoned buildings including
schools, tax delinquent housing and commercial real estate controlled by the city have
been identified by city agencies.
District of Columbia City Council Reform
In early 1999, two studies critical of the Council’s operations were released. In
January 1999, The National Conference of State Legislatures released a Report to the
Council of the District of Columbia: Building a Stronger, More Effective Institution.
The study, which was conducted at the request of the Council, detailed problems in
the operation and organization of the District’s legislative body, created under the
Home Rule Act of 1974. In February, the DC Appleseed Center released its study of
the operation and organization of the Council, entitled Operational Reform of the
District of Columbia Council: A Fix-It-Yourself Manual. Both reports criticized the
operations of the Council and recommended reforms. The studies found the Council
too reliant on the use of the emergency legislation process, noting that it used the
emergency process to pass nearly half of its legislation. The studies also found that
the Council is hampered by operational and structural problems such as: the
fragmented and parochial nature of its committee structure; the prevalence of
patronage in its committee staffing; and the lack of a centralized professional staff
capable of providing in-depth analysis of proposed legislation. The studies also noted
the Council’s inconsistent execution of its oversight responsibilities, and the
unfocused and undisciplined nature of public hearings.
Included among the various recommendations of the studies are the following:
! abolish the current committee structure and the practice of allowing the chair
of each Council committee to select committee staff;
! create a centralized, permanent resource of professionally trained public policy
staffers capable of performing legislative and public policy research, bill
drafting, fiscal analysis, and related legislative services;
! improve dissemination of information to the public;
! provide timely distribution of proposed bills and amendments to Council
members to allow each member sufficient time to formulate an informed
opinion concerning a proposal’s meaning and impact; and
! improve the Council’s standard legislative process by providing better and
more timely information to Council members and the public.
Public Education
For the first time in four years, the District of Columbia public schools opened
on time in September 1998. However, despite this minor accomplishment, the school

---

CRS-5
system faced challenges in meeting the needs of its students. Like so many District
government institutions, the city’s public education system has experienced changes
during the past year, and will face challenges in the coming months.
In April 1998, General Julius Becton resigned as chief executive of the District
of Columbia public schools and was replaced by Arlene Ackerman. On November 3,
1998, voters elected five new members to the school board. In late October 1998, the
Authority’s chair, Alice Rivlin, signed a memorandum on returning authority to the
Board of Education, offering the elected school board the promise of complete return
of responsibility and authority for operations of the District’s public schools by June
30, 2000. In 1996, the Authority had declared the school system to be in a state of
crisis, stripped the elected school board of its powers, and appointed an emergency
board of trustees. In January 1998, the elected school board successfully challenged
the Authority’s power to transfer its oversight and management powers to the
appointed emergency board of trustees. The Rivlin memorandum of October, 1998,
gives the elected school board some input on school discipline and facilities, and
promises to increase the elected board’s decision-making powers. The elected board
continues to retain the power to grant charters to groups seeking to start public
charter schools.
In 1998, the District experienced an expansion in the number of public charter
schools. These schools are financially supported by public education funds, but
operate independently of the school system bureaucracy. In 1998, 22 institutions
received charter school designation. By September 1999, the number of charter
schools is expected to reach 29. During the 1997-1998 school year, three charter
schools operated in the city. Currently, approximately 3,600 (5%) of the total
student population in the District of Columbia attends public charter schools.
In August 26, 1998, during testimony before the House Oversight Subcommittee
on the District of Columbia, Constance Newman, a member of the Authority,
identified problems in the school systems special education program. The District
public school system provides special education services to nearly 7,700 students,
approximately 10%t of the District’s public school population. The number of
students seeking special education assistance is expected to grow to 11,000. This
growth in special education needs has implications for the future cost of education
and the pace of educational reform. The school system has budgeted $167 million for
special education services for FY1999, which is 30% of the school system’s total
budget.
Funding is not the only issue. Delays in the period between the time a student is
referred and assessed increase the number of students placed in private educational
institutions, which adds to cost of special education. Concern about the cost of these
delays prompted Congress to include a provision in the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY1999 that extends the time period between referral and
assessment of a student’s with special education needs from 50 days to 120 days. In
addition, in September, 1998, the Superior Court appointed two receivers to improve

---

CRS-6
educational instruction at the Oak Hill Prison School, which houses District youth offenders.
In response, the Council passed PR 13-113, on April 13, 1999. The resolution
establishes a special committee (Council Special Education Program Investigation
Special Committee) to investigate the delivery of special education services, and
includes all members of the City Council of District of Columbia The resolution gives
the Special Committee one year to investigate and recommend improvements in the
delivery of services. In April, 1999, the superintendent of public schools placed three
of the agency’s top special education administrators on administrative leave. The
superintendent also announced administrative and programmatic changes as part of
a 90-day action plan intended to address some of the agency’s long standing
problems, including transferring the responsibility for special education assessments
to school principals.
Receiverships
The courts continue to play a significant role in the daily operations of the
District government. According to the District’s proposed budget for FY2000, 7%
of proposed total general fund expenditures ($4.637 billion) will be controlled by
court appointed receivers. Three agencies (the Child and Family Services; Mental
Health Services, and District Columbia Jail Medical Services) account for at least
$352 million in proposed spending controlled by court order. The budget does not
include cost estimates for two other agencies controlled by court appointed receivers:
the District of Columbia Public Housing Authority, and the Oak Hill Prison School.
In September 1998, the District of Columbia Superior Court appointed two
receivers to manage the daily operations of the Oak Hill Prison School. The new
receivers appointed by the court are Peter Leone and Sheri Mitchell of the University
of Maryland. The judge stated that he was not satisfied with educational services
provided to the youth offenders housed at the Oak Hill Prison, located in Laurel,
Maryland. After appointing the receivers the judge stated that the operations of the
school could be returned to the District school system before the next school year.
The city could also see the return of the Housing Authority from receivership by
the year 2000, according to press reports. The agency has been in receivership since
1995. Legislation has been introduced by Council Chair Linda Cropp that would allow
the agency to retain its independent status. Despite progress made by the District’s
public housing agency, there are no indications that three of the four other agencies
under court ordered receivership are prepared to be returned to District government
control any time soon.

---

CRS-7
Budget Request
No Supplemental Appropriations for FY1999
No additional funding for the District of Columbia was requested by the Clinton
Administration or the Authority, and none was included in the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY1999.
FY2000: The President’s Budget Request
On February 1, 1999, the Clinton Administration released its FY2000 budget
recommendations. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $393 million in
federal payments to the District of Columbia. The Administration also included $17
million for the Department of Education to support the college access legislation that
would grant District residents in-state tuition status at public colleges and universities
in neighboring states.
The Administration’s budget request for the District of Columbia includes $80.3
million in funds for activities of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency
of the District of Columbia. This would be a $20 million increase above the program’s
FY1999 level of $59 million. The major portion ($13 million) of the proposed
increase would fund parole, probation, and offender supervision activities. The public
defender and pretrial services agencies would receive $7.6 million more in federal
assistance payments than the $25.6 million appropriated in FY1999.
For the second consecutive year, the budget did not include an unrestricted
federal payment or federal contribution to the city; nor does the budget contain
funding requests for federal payments for mental health activities, school construction,
or special education. These proposals were included in the District’s consensus
budget. The District is seeking $117.3 in mental health assistance, $73.1 million in
school construction assistance, and $30 million for special education. In its FY1999
payments to the District the federal government included $30 million in special
education funding to address longstanding problems in processing and evaluating
students with special needs.
FY2000: 302(b) Suballocation
Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act requires that the House and
Senate pass a concurrent budget resolution establishing aggregate spending ceiling
(budget authority and outlays) for each fiscal year. These ceilings are used by House
and Senate Appropriators as a blueprint for allocating funds. Section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires Appropriation Committees in the House

---

CRS-8
and Senate to subdivide their 302(a) allocation of budget authority and outlays among
the 13 appropriation subcommittees.
On June 24, 1999, the Senate Appropriation Committee approved a revised
302(b) suballocation for the District of $410 million. The Committee’s initial 302(b)
suballocation for the District of $393 million was consistent with the Administration’s
budget request. . The House Appropriations Committee approved 302(b)
suballocation of $453 million in budget authority for FY2000 for the District of
Columbia. The Senate bill, S. 1283, would appropriate $410.7 million in budget
authority for FY2000. This is consistent with the Senate’s revised 302(b)
suballocation.
FY2000: District Budget Request
On May 11, 1999, the Council approved a $4.7 billion budget for FY2000. The
council’s budget proposal, supported by the mayor and the Authority, includes $614.1
million in general and special federal payments. The FY2000 budget submitted for
congressional approval also included a $150 million reserve fund mandated by the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1999 and $41 million in productivity,
procurement, and management savings.
The Council also also approved a so-called tax parity act. According to its
sponsors, this Act is intended to encourage economic development in the District by
bringing the District’s personal and business income tax structure in line with
surrounding jurisdictions in the states of Maryland and Virginia. The tax parity act
passed by the Council is projected to reduce commercial property taxes and personal
and business income taxes by $300 million over a five-year period. The measure has
been the source of debate among city leaders and during congressional hearings.
Democrats on the House and Senate on the District of Columbia appropriations
subcommittees have raised concerns about the need to improve services before the
city undertakes tax cuts. Republicans on the House and Senate subcommittees
support the tax cuts as part of a larger strategy to encourage business development
and reverse the exodus of middle class families.
Congressional Action on the Budget
Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fund certain
activities, but also reviews the District’s entire budget including the expenditure of
local funds. The District subcommittees of both the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees must approve— and may modify— the District’s budget. House and
Senate versions of the District budget are reconciled in a joint conference committee
and must be passed by the House and the Senate. After this final action by the
House and the Senate, the District’s budget is forwarded to the President who can
sign it into law or veto it.

---

CRS-9
FY2000: Senate Bill, S. 1283.
Federal Funds. On July 1, 1999, the Senate approved S.1283, a bill providing
FY2000 appropriations for the District of Columbia. The Senate bill would provide
$410.7 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia (See Table 2). This is
$208.8 million less than provided in FY1999. This decrease in federal funding
coincides with the District’s improved fiscal prospects including a projected $282
million budget surplus for FY2000. The Senate Appropriations bill includes funding
increases for court operations, courts services and offender supervision. The bill
would provide the following:
! an additional $8.8 million for court operations with the majority of the increase
allocated to the Superior Court for the District of Columbia; and
! a $20.9 million increase in funding for parole revocation and probation
activities ($13.3 million) and pretrial and public defender services ($7.6
million).
The bill would specifically earmark $5.9 million in parole revocation and probation
funds for drug screening and testing activities.
The Senate also recommends a $17 million federal payment to fund a proposed
legislative initiative that would grant eligible residents of the District of Columbia in-
state tuition status when seeking college admission in neighboring states. The
Committee also approved $1 million in funding for a crime fighting initiative aimed
at reducing the street corner sale of illegal drugs.

---

CRS-10
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special Federal Payment Funds:
Proposed FY2000 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
FY2000
Programs
Enacted
City’s
FY1999
Admin.
budget
House
Senate
Conf.
Federal Payments: General and Special Fund
Corrections Trustee for Operations
184.8
176.0
$176.0
$183.0
$176.0
—
District of Columbia Courts Operation
128.0
137.4
137.4
100.7
136.4
—
Court operations
121.0
128.4
128.4
91.7
128.4
—
Court of Appeals
[7.8]
[7.4]
[7.4]
[7.2]
[7.4]
—
Superior Court
[72.4]
[78.6]
[78.6]
[75.2]
[78.6]
—
Court system
[40.7]
[42.5]
[42.5]
[9.2]
[42.4]
—
Child Abuse and Neglect
[6.9]
[6.9]
[6.9]
0.01
[6.9]
—
Indigent representation
[25.0]
[26.0]
[26.0]
0.02
[26.0]
—
Capital Improvements
7.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.0
—
Defender Services in D.C. Courts3
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
---
Court Services and Offender
—
Supervision Agency for the District of
59.4
80.3
$80.3
105.5
$80.3
Columbia
Parole Revocation, Adult
—
Probation and Offender
[33.8]
[47.1]
[47.1]
[69.4]
[47.1]
Supervision
Drug testing and screening
—-
—-
—-
[32.2]
[5.9]
—
Public Defender Service
[14.5]
[17.4]
[17.4]
[17.4]
[17.4]
—
Pretrial Service Agency
[11.1]
[15.8]
[15.8]
[18.7]
[15.8]
—
District of Columbia Resident Tuition
—
Support
0.0-
0.0
0.0
17.0
17.0
Incentives for the Adoption of Foster
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.5
0.0
---
Children
Metro. Police Open-air drug market
—
elimination initiative
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
Management Reform
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Metro improvements
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Boys Town operations
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
—

---

CRS-11
FY2000
Programs
Enacted
City’s
FY1999
Admin.
budget
House
Senate
Conf.
Infrastructure Fund
18.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Lorton study
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Citizen compliant review office
1.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
—
Firefighters pay raise
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Waterfront park improvements
1.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
City and national museums
2.7
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
Southwest waterfront improvements
3.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
study
Public charter schools
15.6
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
Children’s National Medical Center
1.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
—
U.S. Park police helicopter operations
8.5
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
Mentor services
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.25
0.0
—
Medicaid coordinated care
3.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
demonstration
Mental Health
0.0
0.0
117.3
—
0.0
—
School Construction
0.0
0.0
73.1
—
0.0
—
Special Education
30.0
0.0
30.0
—
0.0
—
Revitalization Corp.
25.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
Y2K Information technology
20.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
Infrastructure and economic dev.
50.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
—
projects
Total federal payments
619.5
393.7
614.1
453.0
410.7
—
1. Funds would be provided under a separate heading-- Defender Services for the District of Columbia Courts.
The Committee’s recommendation is based on the Courts misuse of funds appropriated for such activities in
previous years.
2. Funds would be provided under a separate heading-- Defender Services for the District of Columbia Courts.
The Committee’s recommendation is based on the Courts misuse of funds appropriated for such activities in
previous years.
3. In previous years funds would be provided as part of District of Columbia Court operations. The
Committee recommends creation of a separate appropriations to ensure payment of attorneys representing
indigent persons, guardianship, and abused and neglected children in court proceedings.

---

CRS-12
In addition to the special federal payments identified above, the District estimates
that it will receive an additional $1.508 billion in federal funds to administer various
federal grants provided to state, county, and local governments. These grant funds
combined with the special federal payments would provide the District with $1.919
billion in federal funds for FY2000.
Local Funds. The District’s budget as approved by the Senate Appropriations
Committee includes $4.658 billion in general fund operating expenses and $676
million in enterprise funds representing $5.334 billion in total operating expenses.
The budget would also limit to 5% a proposed increase in salary compensation for
Council members. This would provide an annual salary of $84,635 for council
members, who are considered part-time legislators, with no restrictions on outside
income. The budget as approved by the Council would have increased council
member salaries by 15% to $92,464. The Senate bill let stand a provision included in
the District’s proposed budget that would increase the salary of the chair of the city
council to $102,000. The council chair would continued to be prohibited from
earning outside income.
The Senate bill increases the amount of funds available for economic
development activities by $31 million above the amount approved for FY1999. In
addition, S. 1283, as approved by the full Senate, would increase funding for public
education by $78 million, which is $17 million more than the city’s consensus budget
blueprint. The bill would also increase funding for public safety activities by $23
million.
The Senate Appropriations Committee made only a few changes in how the
District’s proposed budget would use locally generated funds. The Senate Committee
reduced the amount of funds available to the City Administrator’s office to $12.8
million . This is $12.3 million below the $25.1 million identified in the District’s
budget for FY2000. This $12.8 million is $11.9 million more than was available in
FY1999. During FY1999, the many of the duties and responsibilities of the city
administrator were subsumed by the chief management officer. When Congress passed
the District of Columbia Management Restoration Act of 1999, on March 8, 1999,
it transferred to the mayor many of the responsibilities for the daily operation of the
District government. The increase in funding above the FY1999 allocation reflects
the transfer of responsibility, staff, and funding from the chief management officer to
the city administrator.
The Senate Committee bill requires the city to maintain a $150 million reserve
fund. The purpose of the reserve fund is the protect the District against future
expenditure overruns or revenue shortfalls. During congressional hearings on its
budget the city sought to persuade congressional appropriators to reduce or eliminate
the $150 million reserve requirement. District officials noted the city had eliminated
its accumulated deficit by the end of FY1998 and had realized a budget surplus of
$112 million. The District officials noted that the fund balance is projected to grow
to $292 by the end of the current fiscal year.

---

CRS-13
District officials contend that the city’s general fund surpluses of the last two
years (1997 and 1998), as well as projected surpluses, exceed the 5% percent of
general fund expenditure threshold that Wall Street uses to assess a local
government’s fiscal health. The Committee bill includes a provision that would require
District officials to report to Congress any planned expenditure from the fund at least
30 days in advance.
Table 3. District of Columbia General: District of Columbia Funds
(in millions of dollars)
Programs
FY2000
Enacted
District’s
FY1999
budget
House
Senate
Confer.
Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds
GENERAL FUND
Governmental direction and support
$164.144
174.667
162.356
162.356
—
Economic development and regulation
159.039
190.335
190.335
190.335
—
Public safety and justice
755.786
778.670
785.760
778.470
—
Public education system
788.956
850.411
867.411
867.411
—
Human support services
1,514.751
1,525.996
1,526.361
1,526.111
—
Public works
266.912
271.395
271.395
271.395
—
Receivership programs
318.979
337.077
345.577
337.077
—
Workforce investments
0.000
8.500
8.500
8.500
—
Reserve Fund
0.000
150.000
150.000
150.000
—
DC Financial Responsibility and
—
Management Assistance Authority
7.840
3.140
3.140
3.140
Repayment of Loans and Interest
382.170
328.417
328.417
328.417
—
Repayment Gen. Fund Recovery Debt
38.453
38.286
38.286
38.286
—
Pay interest on short term borrowing
11.000
9.000
9.000
9.000
—
One Judiciary Square Certificate of
—
Participation
7.926
7.950
7.950
7.950
Optical and dental insurance payments
0.000
1.295
1.295
1.295
—
Productivity Savings
{10.000}
{20.000}
{20.000}
{20.000}
—
Procurement and management savings
{10.000}
{21.457}
{21.457}
{21.457}
—
Human Resource Development
6.674
0.000
0.000*
0.000
—
Productivity bank
0.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
—

---

CRS-14
Programs
FY2000
Enacted
District’s
FY1999
budget
House
Senate
Confer.
General fund total operating expenses
4,418.030
4,653.682
4,694.236
4,658.286
—
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water and Sewer Authority
273.314
279.608
279.608
279.608
—
Lottery and charitable Games
225.200
234.400
234.400
234.400
—
DC Sports Commission
8.751
10.846
10.846
10.846
—
DC Public Benefit Corp.
66.764
89.008
89.008
89.008
—
DC Retirement Board
18.202
9.892
9.892
9.892
—
Correctional Industries Fund
9.432
1.810
1.810
1.810
—
Convention Center Enterprise Fund
48.139
50.226
50.226
50.226
—
Cable Television
2.108
0.000
0.000
0.000
—
Public Service Commission
5.026
0.000
0.000
0.000
—
Office of the People’s Council
2.501
0.000
0.000
0.000
—
Dept. of Insur. and Secur. Regulation
7.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
—
Office of Banking and Fin. Regulation
.640
0.000
0.000
0.000
—
Total enterprise funds
660.978
675.790
675.970
675.790
—
Total operating expenses
5,079.008
5,329.472
5,370.026
5,334.076
—
CAPITAL OUTLAY
General Fund
1,711.161
798.666
1,218.638
1,415.806
—
Total District of Columbia Funds
$6,790.169
$6,231.475
6,785.833
$6,749.882
—
General Provisions. The Senate Committee bill, S. 1283, as reported, includes
several policy related general provisions. The bill would continue to prohibit the use
of District revenues to fund the following activities:
! abortions except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest;
! the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992, which would provide health
care coverage and other benefits to unmarried couples not related by blood;
and
! civil court challenges or petition drives seeking to provide the District of
Columbia with congressional voting representation.

---

CRS-15
The bill would also establish April 1, 2000 as the deadline for the removal of all
inmates classified above the medium security level from the Northeast Ohio
Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio.
In addition to the $150 million reserve fund, the Committee bill includes a
provision that would require a 4% surplus general fund balance. The bill would allow
any amount above a 4% general fund surplus to be used for debt reduction or non-
recurring expenses. However, the Committee bill would limit the amount that could
be used for non-recurring expenses to no more than half the amount above the four
percent general fund balance requirement. The Committee bill also includes a
provision that would allow the city to use tax abatement to encourage revitalization
of commercial properties in empowerment zones.
Senate Floor Consideration of S. 1283. On July 1, 1999 the Senate considered
S. 1283 as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. Rept. 106-88). The
Senate passed by voice vote the Committee-approved bill with few spending changes.
During floor debate on the bill, the Senate did consider eight amendments. It passed
six of those amendments. The other two amendments were withdrawn. One of the
withdrawn amendments would have extended the prohibition on the use of city and
federal funds to pay for a needle exchange program. The other amendment that was
withdrawn would have deleted the proposed $17 million federal contribution for the
tuition assistance program.
The floor amendments adopted by the Senate include provisions that would:
!
amend the District of Columbia Code to require the arrest and termination
of parole of any prisoner found in possession of illegal drugs;
!
require the General Accounting Office to undertake a study of the District’s
criminal justice system and to report its findings and recommendations to
Congress not later than one year after enactment of the amendment;
!
encourage the District public schools to development a violence prevention
program; and
!
direct the National Park Service to expedite the site selection of two
cellular towers in Rock Creek Park.

FY2000: House Bill, H.R. 2587.
Federal Funds. On July 20, 1999, the House Appropriations Committee
reported out H.R. 2587, a bill providing FY2000 appropriations for the District of
Columbia. The House Appropriations Committee bill would provide $453 million in
federal payments to the District of Columbia (See Table 2). This is $166 million less
than provided in FY1999, but $43 million more than recommended by the Senate.
The bill would provide the following:
! a reduction of $27.3 million for court operations with the majority of the
decrease coming from a proposed transfer of funds to a new defender services
account;

---

CRS-16
! a newly created court-related defender services account totaling $33.3 million
to be used to pay attorneys representing indigent persons, guardianship, and
child abuse and neglect court cases; and
! a $46.1 million increase in funding for parole revocation and probation
activities ($35.6 million) and pretrial and public defender services ($10.5
million).
The Committee specifically earmarked $32.2 million of the total $669.4 million in
parole revocation and probation funds for drug screening and testing activities.
The House Committee also recommends a $17 million federal payment to fund
a proposed legislative initiative that would grant eligible residents of the District of
Columbia in-state tuition status when seeking college admission in other states. The
Committee also approved $1.2 million in funding for a citizens compliant review
board to review police misconduct charges.
Local Funds. The District’s budget as approved by the House Appropriations
Committee includes $4.694 billion in general fund operating expenses and $676
million in enterprise funds representing $5.370 billion in total operating expenses.
The House Appropriations Committee bill would:
!
increase the amount of funds available for economic development activities
by $31 million above the amount approved for FY1999, which is consistent
with the actions of the Senate;
!
increase funding for public education by $78 million, also consistent with
the Senate’s bill;
!
increase funding for public safety activities by $30 million above the
FY1999 level;
!
reduce the amount of funds available to the City Administrator’s office to
$12.8 million, which is consistent with the Senate’s actions; and
!
require the city to maintain a $150 million reserve fund, which is consistent
with language in the Senate bill.
General Provisions. The House Appropriations Committee bill, H.R. 2587, as
reported, includes several general provisions that were also included in the Senate-
passed bill.. Like the Senate bill, H.R. 2587 would continue to prohibit the use of
District revenues to fund:
! abortions except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest;
! the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992, which would provide health
care coverage and other benefits to unmarried couples not related by blood;
and
! civil court challenges or petition drives seeking to provide the District of
Columbia with congressional voting representation.
Both the House and Senate bills would establish April 1, 2000 as the deadline for the
removal of all inmates classified above the medium security level from the Northeast
Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio.

---

CRS-17
H.R. 2587, includes several provisions not found in S. 1283. The House
Appropriations Committee-passed bill would:
!
lift the prohibition on the use of federal fund for a needle exchange program
intended to reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS;
!
lift the prohibition on the use of federal fund to count ballots related to
medical marijuana initiative; and
!
require the city’s deputy mayor for economic development to undertake an
inventory of rental property lease agreements entered into by all city
agencies.
In addition to the $150 million reserve fund, the Committee bill includes a
provision that would require the city to allocate general fund surpluses as follows: :
!
the first $250 million in excess or surplus revenues shall be used to finance
seasonal cash needs in lieu of short-term borrowing;
!
amounts above the first $250 million in surplus revenues are to be used to
accelerate repayment of cash borrowed from the Water and Sewer Fund;
and
!
thirdly, surplus funds may then be used to reduce outstanding long-term
bond indebtedness.
This differs from the Senate bill which would allow any amount above a 4% general
fund surplus to be used for debt reduction or non-recurring expenses.
House Floor Consideration of H.R. 2587. On July 29, 1999, the House
completed and passed H.R. 2587, an amended version of the House Appropriations
Committee-approved bill. The bill was first brought to the floor on July 27, 1999,
after being reported out of Committee on July 20, 1999 (H.Rept. 106-249). The
House passed the amended bill by a vote of 333 yeas to 92 nays,. During House floor
debate on the bill seven amendments were considered. The House passed three,
rejected two, and two amendments were withdrawn by their sponsors.
One of the withdrawn amendments would have instituted penalties for the
possession of tobacco products by minors. The second amendment that was
withdrawn would have specifically stated that the city could use funds to purchase
automated external defribillators.
The House rejected an amendment that would have barred adoption of children
by unmarried couples. Also rejected by the House was an amendment introduced by
the District’s non-voting delegate, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, that would have
stricken Sec. 146 from H.R. 2587. Sec. 146 of H.R. 2587, would continue to
prohibit the use of District of Columbia or federal funds in the filing of a petition or
civil action seeking to gain congressional voting representation in the House and the
Senate for residents of the District.
The House passed an amendment that would extend the prohibition on the use
of city and federal funds to pay for a needle exchange program. The House
Appropriations Committee included language that would have allow the city to use
city funds, but not federal funds, for a needle exchange program. Proponents of a
needle exchange program contended that it would help reduce the rate of HIV

---

CRS-18
infections caused by the sharing of needles by drug addicted persons. Opponents
contend that needle exchange programs are ineffective and amount to government
sanctioning of the use of illegal drugs. They also point to the appropriation of $13
million in additional funds for drug treatment. A similar Senate amendment
prohibiting he use of District or federal funds for a needle exchange was introduced
but withdrawn during Senate floor consideration of S. 1283.
The House approved an amendment introduced by the Chairman of the District
of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee, Representative Istook, that would allow
the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency to develop a sex offender
registry. The House also approved an amendment that would allow the city to tally
and make public the results of last November’s medical marijuana ballot initiative.
But, the amendment would prohibit the District from legalizing or reducing the
criminal penalty for the possession, use, or distribution of a schedule 1 substance,
which would included marijuana, as defined by the Control Substance Act.

---